Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/SMS Zrínyi


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Not promoted by The ed17 03:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

SMS Zrínyi

 * Nominator(s): Buggie111 (talk) White Shadows (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I think it's of the same quality as it's sistership, SMS Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand. I look forward to reviews. Buggie111 ( talk) 19:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Provisional support Comments:
 * no dabs, ext links work (no action required);
 * one image has alt text but another doesn't. While it is not a requirement, it might be best to make this consistent: ;
 * Fixed
 * "File:Zrinyi.jpg" - needs description, source, author, date information added to the image description page on Commons;
 * Since Orlovic hasn't been editing for about a month, I'd like your help in finding a replacement picture. I myself can only guess at the necesarry things. I have asked him here. Buggie111 (talk) 15:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Images are not really my forte, sorry. My suggestion is to try to get a copy of Janes from the appropriate year and scan an image from there. There might be a copy at a library near you (if you search on Worldcat and put in your post/zip code, it will be able to tell where the nearest copy is. Also, Sturm or Parsecboy might be able to help. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * there is some inconsistency in the presentation of the ship's name, sometimes "Zrinyi" and then sometimes "Zrínyi" - should be consistent;
 * Fixed
 * there is a mixture of US and British English. For instance "caliber" (US) and "armour" (British). I suggest using US English as the ship briefly served in the US Navy
 * Fixed, I think. Check over again just to make sure, please.
 * I found one example still: "French armoured cruiser Edgar Quinet" - but I'm not sure how to fix this due to the use of template. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * in the infobox "880-890 officers and men" (this range should probably have an endash);
 * Fixed
 * I'm not sure about using bullet points in the infobox, I seem to remember someone saying something about this in other ACRs - I think it is a Ships style issue. Sturm would probably know something about this;
 * Yup, it was commented on somewhere, can't exactly remember. I know I checked Sevastopol for that, but not this. Fixed.
 * there is inconsistency in the date format that is used, for instance in the infobox "15 November 1908" and then in the lead "November 10, 1918". This should be consistent;
 * I think you've fixed all of these. I've tweaked a couple, though, as there shouldn't be a comma in between the month and year in the ddmmyyyy format. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * in the infobox the size of the ship's crew is provided, but this doesn't seem to be included in the prose of the article. I suggest adding this, probably in the "Construction" section, with a citation;
 * in the lead, this sounds awkward, "named for the Zrinski, a noble Croatian family, subject of the Hungarian Crown" (I suggest rewording);
 * Fixed, please check
 * Looks fine now. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * in the lead, "the Adriatic sea" ("sea" should probably be "Sea" as in this case it is a proper noun);
 * Fixed
 * the second paragraph of the lead is quite small and would probably work better if combined with one of the others;
 * Fixed
 * in the Construction section, the main article is listed as: "Main article: Radetzky class battleship" (should this be "Radetsky-class battleship"?)
 * Fixed
 * Sorry for my typo (should be Radetzky-class battleship). I've fixed it. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * should the "Construction" section be renamed "Construction and design" as it seems to deal with more than just construction?
 * I've renamed it "Design and Construction", as the designing stage was first.
 * in the Construction section, "Radetzky followed eight months earlier" (I don't think that "followed" and "earlier" work well together as followed implies "came after" - consider rewording);
 * Fixed
 * the Construction section does not seem to mention when the ship was laid down, although the date is listed in the infobox and in the lead;
 * Fixed
 * there appears to be some confusion over date of commissioning. In the Construction section: "Zrinyi was completed by 15 July 1911, when she was commissioned into the fleet", but in the infobox: "Commissioned: 22 November 1911";
 * Fixed
 * Can you please check this again? The prose still says "was completed by 15 July 1911, when she was commissioned into the fleet", while the infobox has "Commissioned: 22 November 1911". AustralianRupert (talk) 01:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops. guess I missed it. Will fix in a second.
 * there is a typo here: "the and Erzherzog Karl- class and finally, the older Habsburg-class";
 * Fixed
 * "Ships from other navies included in the demonstration was the British pre-dreadnought" (should be "in the demonstration were");
 * Fixed
 * "On 23 May 1915, between two and four hours after the Italian declaration of war reached the main Austro-Hungarian naval base at Pola" - do you mean "two and four hours after news of the Italian declaration"?
 * Fixed
 * in the World War I section, "On the shore, the infrastructure of the port of Ancona, as well as the surrounding towns, were severely damaged" (should be "was severley damaged");
 * It talks about the towns in that sentance, so that is why I left it as is.
 * I suggest reorganising it as follows: "On the shore, the port's infrastructure was severely damaged, as were the surrounding towns". AustralianRupert (talk) 01:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure of the spelling here: "Postwar". Shouldn't this be either "Post war" or "Post-war"?
 * Fixed
 * in the Postwar fate section, there is an incorrectly spaced emdash (it shouldn't be spaced per WP:DASH);
 * Fixed
 * "The ship had been boarded with a scratch Yugoslav crew" ("been boarded by" perhaps?);
 * Fixed
 * the abbreviation "USN" should be formally introduced on first mention (the lead), e.g. "United States Navy (USN)";
 * Fixed
 * Footnote 1 might need a citation, while it might be a good idea to give page numbers for the Halpern and Sokol claims to Footnote 2;
 * in the Citations, why is "Hore (Battleships)" different to the others?
 * I've fixed this by removing the title from the short citation as there didn't seem to be any reason to differentiate it given that there is only one Hore book listed in the References section. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Citation # 16 (Sokol, pp. 107-108) should probably have an endash;
 * Fixed
 * are there ISBNs or OCLC numbers for the Miller and Sokol works?
 * No ISBN number exists for Sokol's work unfortunately....there may be a OCLC number though...-- White Shadows Stuck in square one 19:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've added this in now. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * some of the publication locations have states, but others don't - this should be consistent;
 * I've done all but Vego as per below, as I couldn't seem to locate the correct editon on Worldcat. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * is there a location for the publisher of the Vego source?
 * the title of the Vego work should be capitalised as such: "Austro-Hungarian Naval Policy, 1904-14". AustralianRupert (talk) 10:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've done this. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments. I'll get to them as soon as I can. Buggie111 (talk) 12:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, most of my comments have been dealt with, so I'm prepared to support it on the proviso that other reviewers with more ships knowledge and copy editing skills are happy with it. As the review will close on 23 May (about six days away), it might pay to ask Dank if they can take a run through the article and copy edit it now. You will also need to try to drum up another reviewer or two, in order to ensure that the requirement for a minimum of three reviews is met. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Rupert, on ships articles, I generally like to see a support from one of the SHIPS regulars before I copyedit; the article may change a lot during their review. - Dank (push to talk) 02:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that makes sense. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but for today and most of tomorrow, I'll be bogged down with finals and a concert, so I'l get to work after that. Buggie111 (talk) 13:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Provisional support on research quality and citation quality pending bibliography fixits Cites are good. Sourcing quality is good. Some fixits in reference. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming that "Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships" doesn't have separately authored articles?
 * I believe so...but may be wrong as I don't have a copy on hand.-- White Shadows Stuck in square one 23:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes they do. Erwin Sieche wrote the section for Austria-Hungary, and the chapter page range is 326–347. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Frucht ISBN template is broken, can't handle 2 ISBNs
 * So you want one ISN chosen over another?-- White Shadows Stuck in square one 23:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Which country is London in? (London, UK or London, United Kingdom is appropriate if you're giving Place, US-state-contraction)
 * So either one is OK?-- White Shadows Stuck in square one 23:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Vego "Taylor & Francis." is located where? Fifelfoo (talk) 05:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments
 * Link sister (sister ship) in the lede. And slipway, wing turret, quick-firing gun, Montenegrin, Serbia, Albanians, Ottomans, Pola, Taranto, Brindisi, submarine chaser the first time they're mentioned.
 * Done.-- White Shadows Stuck in square one 00:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete the dates of launching, commissioning, etc. from the lede. It's supposed to be a summary and you're repeating info that will be given again in the main body. This is a short article, I'd not be concerned about the length of the lede.
 * Done.-- White Shadows Stuck in square one 00:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Commissioning dates of her sisters not relevant. Only the fact that she was the last of the three is (slightly) important.
 * Done.-- White Shadows Stuck in square one 00:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't start most sentences with the ship's name. My personal policy is to use the name, "the ship" and "she" interchangeably, but not in succession, to make the text read better.
 * Done.-- White Shadows Stuck in square one 00:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not clear: Zrínyi was powered by two-shaft four-cylinder vertical triple expansion engines rated at 19,800 indicated horsepower and a top speed of 20.5 knots (38.0 km/h; 23.6 mph). The engine(s) drove the propeller shafts, right? Or did they have shafts of their own? The engines don't have a top speed. They gave the ship a top speed so you need to add a verb.
 * How many boilers of what type? You need to provide this to support the infobox, with appropriate links.
 * I fixed the ship speed...but I'm not sure how to proceed with the beginning of the sentence.-- White Shadows Stuck in square one 21:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This is also not clear: Three 45 cm (17.7 in) torpedo tubes were also carried, two on the beams First off, beam cannot be pluralized; it's always singular in the nautical usage. It's also the wrong word to use here because it's jargon. You need to specify that there was one torpedo tube on each broadside, with a link to broadside to make things very clear.
 * Done.-- White Shadows Stuck in square one 21:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've added links and de-abbreviated some of your measurements to make them easier to understand. It's a good idea, I think, to do so in both the infobox and in the main body.
 * Austro-Hungarian Fleet is a proper noun so fleet needs to be capitalized.
 * I'm not really sure how you want me to go about this one. I mean, in the infobox, I can't de-abbreviate anything else without messing the templates up.-- White Shadows Stuck in square one 22:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The landing guns aren't part of the tertiary armament, but rather equipped the ship's boats for operations ashore, IIRC.
 * Done.-- White Shadows Stuck in square one 22:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This is awkward: rendered inactive A better phrasing would be "were neutralized or suppressed"
 * Done.-- White Shadows Stuck in square one 22:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This too: participated in destroying a train, a railway station, and a bridge at Senigallia Try to avoid nominalizations like destroying (the -ing ending is a key indicator). I'd rephrase it as "helped to destroy... Also link Senigallia.
 * Done.-- White Shadows Stuck in square one 22:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * How do you enact a strategy? You can follow a strategy.
 * Done.-- White Shadows Stuck in square one 22:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Consolidate your multiple references to DANFS in the Post-war fate section. The cite documents your sources up to the previous cite in the same paragraph.
 * Done.-- White Shadows Stuck in square one 22:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Pulled or towed Zrinyi to Italy?
 * Is there really a difference? Can I just chose one over the other? If so, I made it all consistent with tow.-- White Shadows Stuck in square one 22:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Your notes need cites and page numbers.
 * I've gotten one done...but could not add in actual citations without messing everything up.-- White Shadows Stuck in square one 23:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you quoting text from DANFS? If not then delete the mention of it in the references. If you are then you need to put the quoted material in quotation marks.
 * Added quotations.-- White Shadows Stuck in square one 23:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Consolidate cite #23 into #1.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Done.-- White Shadows Stuck in square one 23:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: this review has been open for 31 days now, unless these concerns are able to be addressed in the next day, I really think that the review should be listed for closing. Buggie and White Shadows, do you think you will be able to respond to all of these concerns within this timeframe? AustralianRupert (talk) 11:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Possibly not. To be honest, I was not expecting Buggie to nominate this article yet. I'll try my best though...-- White Shadows Stuck in square one 21:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.