Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tegetthoff-class battleship


 * 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.

No consensus to promote at this time - Ian Rose (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 07:20, 2 December 2018 (UTC) &laquo; Return to A-Class review list

Tegetthoff-class battleship
Instructions for nominators and reviewers
 * Nominator(s): 

Back at it with another class of battleships. This article was the first one I began working on after returning to Wikipedia from a 6-year hiatus. I've spent the entire summer writing this article and while I have no doubts there are still things that need fleshing out, I'm proud to finally nominate this article for an ACR.

Now, a bit about the ships themselves. These battleships are easily the most famous of all of Austria-Hungary's warships. They were the only dreadnought battleships to be constructed for the Austro-Hungarian Navy. Their construction made Austria-Hungary only the third nation in the world to possess dreadnoughts, and they were the first battleships to be commissioned into any navy in the world with triple turrets. They served as the pride and joy of the Austro-Hungarian Navy in the years before World War I, and Viribus Unitis even transported Franz Ferdinand to the Bosnian coastline shortly before his assassination, only to carry the bodies of him and his wife back to Trieste after their deaths in Sarajevo. They were a key asset in the Austro-Hungarian "fleet in being" strategy for most of the war as well, and three of the ships participated in the bombardment of Ancona after Italy declared war on Austria-Hungary in May 1915. They remained largely in port for the next three years until a failed mission to break the Otranto Barrage in June 1918 (just over 100 years ago) led to the sinking of the only Hungarian-built dreadnought of the class. Near the end of the war, Viribus Unitis was sunk by Italian frogmen while at port. After the war, the remaining two ships were divided between France and Italy. The French studied their battleship (particularly the turrets) before sinking her as a target ship in 1922, while the Italians used their ship as a war trophy before scrapping it in the 1920s. Artifacts from the Tegetthoff-class remain in Italy and Austria to this very day.-- White Shadows Let’s Talk 23:06, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Constantine
I made some copyedits as I went along, but I did not find any major issues, apart from those mentioned below.


 * what is a "transversal resistance"? is it transverse or traversal?
 * Clarified this in a way that makes it a bit more simple to understand for the reader. Good catch.


 * File:Viribus Unitis-class battleship main weapon.svg appears to be missing
 * Apparently the file was renamed or deleted. I've restored the correct image.


 * The first paragraph of the "Secrecy" section repeats facts already mentioned in the article; it could be removed without detriment, IMO, to the article
 * Done.


 * I think it would be useful for the average reader (myself included) if at least one sum in Kronen was rendered to an equivalent sum in current USD
 * If I recall, standard practice is to not include conversions to modern USD or any other currency. can likely elaborate more on this than I can but I recall this being brought up in another article I was working on not too long ago.
 * Hmmm, I can't say I agree, but this is not a deal-breaker for me.


 * Should the "Ships" section not be after the naming debate in the "Assembly" section?
 * Traditionally, the section which includes a table covering all the ships in a class is included just above any paragraph that covers construction. There is no formal MOS rule for this, but it's a very common occurrence if you browse many other ship class articles on Wikipedia. I'm more comfortable keeping that section where it currently is, but if a consensus exists to move it, I have no issue doing so.


 * Reference 152, Schmalenbach, pp. 121–122 appears to be missing
 * Added reference, year to citation


 * I've tried to clean up a bit, but there is a lot of WP:OVERLINKING
 * Part of the reason this occurred is because I went through multiple (like a dozen) drafts writing and re-writing this article. Entire sections were moved around, re-worked, deleted, and re-added over the course of 3 months. In the process, many links where placed further down than they needed to be, and new ones popped up without the old ones being removed. This will take some time to clear away, but it will certainly be done.
 * This should now be taken care of. If you spot something that was missed, please let me know!


 * One thing I wonder is whether the whole effort of building these ships was actually worth it, given that they were used as a fleet in being; I sort of get that they were not meant to be used that way (or was this considered pre-war?), but these ships are textbook white elephants. Have historians or military men issued opinions on this?
 * Constantine, you are 100% right that the ships were effectively white elephants. The Szent Istvan for example was in service for such a short amount of time that she never even had her hull cleaned. With the exception of the Bombardment of Ancona and the failed raid on the Otranto Barrage, the ships almost never left port for combat during the entire war. They served as an excellent deterrent and as a fleet in being for the whole war, but they weren't intended to play that sort of role. Italy's neutrality and eventual declaration of war on A-H ended up wrecking Austro-Hungarian naval plans for a European war. These ships should have been used for combat operations in the Mediterranean Sea against France and Britain, but they were also intended to operate in conjunction with the Italians, not against them. Italy's hostility to A-H prevented them from ever doing much of anything save sitting in port for most of the war. In that regard, they were most certainly a waste of time and money to build, but I haven't found any sources that describe them as white elephants so I'd like to refrain from speculation in that regard, however likely it is that they would qualify as white elephants.
 * I did not mean whether they were explicitly described as "white elephants", but whether in the primary or secondary literature the fact was pointed out, if not in the exact same words. I get the story you just described from the article overall, but as my thesis supervisor never got tired of saying, always summarize your findings :). I would be interested to know if this has been remarked upon, if it became a point of criticism or polemics during or after the war, whether naval historians consider these ships a success, not as a technical design, but as a weapon of war, etc. If there is nothing, no problem, but a brief summary on the relative success or failure of the whole design as a strategic concept would be, IMO, valuable. Your reply above could even serve in this role, if you include it in the lede.

Otherwise I found the article fairly complete and easy to follow, and very interesting. I will be happy to support once the above issues are addressed. Constantine  ✍  20:00, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I haven't found much that I could add in that regard. Much of what I wrote here is already hashed out quite extensively in the article however. If I find anything that makes the connection to white elephants, even if that particular phrase isn't used, I'll be sure to try and add it in.
 * Thank you for the comments. I will be sure to get back to you on each of these points as soon as possible.-- White Shadows Let’s Talk 21:05, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Constantine, please feel free to reply if you have any other questions or comments!-- White Shadows Let’s Talk 19:01, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello White Shadows, I've replied above. Cheers, Constantine  ✍  07:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Following White Shadows's edits and reply, I am switching to support. Well done! Constantine  ✍  05:46, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Image review

 * File:Rudolf_Montecuccoli.png: when/where was this first published?
 * The Austrian National Library only depicts the date the photo was taken, not the date it was published. As a result, I don't have an answer to that though I could speculate that it was published the same year it was taken.
 * This has a pre-1923 tag - can we confirm a pre-1923 publication?
 * As I said, I can only confirm when the photo was taken. I can't confirm when it was published.


 * Is there another available tag consistent with what can be confirmed? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:18, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I’ll be honest, things may be lost in translation and the photo may have been published in 1901. I have s hard time believing the photo would NOT be published shortly after it was taken.


 * File:Arbeiter-Zeitung.png should also include a pre-1923 tag
 * Done


 * File:Viribus_Unitis_class_battleship_main_weapon.svg: what is the source of the data underlying this image?
 * I was an own-work from so I don't know...and unfortunately the user hasn't edited Wikipedia since 2016 and Commons since December 2017. If you look at photos of the ships, this diagram seems to be spot-on accurate (even to the shape of the conning tower, depicted in grey in the diagram). However, if there's questions about the accuracy of the diagram I can remove it.


 * File:Tegetthoff_turbines.png: since this is hosted on Commons, it will also need a tag for UK status
 * Done


 * The_construction_of_SMS_Szent_Istvan.webm: source link? Any further details on provenance? Same with Artillery_exercises_of_SMS_Szent_Istvan_1915_(720p).webm
 * Sieche's 1991 article goes on to say that the Hungarian government commissioned these films to serve as propaganda for the Hungarian public that their tax dollars were being used wisely to construct a powerful battleship (that was Hungarian in origin). I don't know how to specify a source link however.
 * The former gives source as "youtube" so presumably there is a YouTube link somewhere? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:17, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Here, and here. Do you want me to edit the files to provide these links?


 * Yes please. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:18, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Will do. That will be added in today.
 * Done


 * File:Ramberg_-_Bombarding_of_Ancona,_1915,_HGM,_2017-03-08.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:31, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Done-- White Shadows Let’s Talk 00:51, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments by PM
This article is in great shape, although it is too long at over 11,000 words. A few comments from me:
 * in the lead, suggest "Renamed Yugoslavia, the ship was destroyed by an Italian mine in the Raid on Pola a day later"
 * suggest "and provided the Austro-Hungarian Navy with an attempt opportunity to even address'' the disparity"
 * suggest "that the prospect difficulty"
 * link Stabilimento Tecnico Triestino at first mention in the body
 * link Diet of Hungary at first mention in the body
 * suggest breaking the sentence beginning "István Tisza..." as it is too long
 * suggest "Šusteršič, the leader of the Slovene bloc," as he has already been introduced
 * when you say "German politicians", do you mean Austrian ones?


 * Yes. Politicians from the German-speaking part of Austria were regularly just referred to as "Germans". Phrases like "the German block" or "the German delegates" are commonly used in works covering this topic.


 * I don't think you need "ammunition and shells", ammunition covers it
 * suggest "the layout of the Tegetthoff-class" as it isn't clear which one you are referring to
 * I suggest moving the first two paras of the Design section to an Assessment section at the end
 * Popper's idea with the reinforced bottom was to protect against mines, but then you refer to a torpedo. I don't follow. A reinforced bottom wouldn't help against torpedoes would it?

The general idea was to protect against explosions, which the hull failed to do. I can clarify that by adding the word "explosions" or saying "mines and torpedoes" if you'd like. down to Construction, more to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:24, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * "the latter by a mine"
 * "which turned 90° compared to the other three ships in the class" this begs the question about how far the other rangefinders turned
 * I couldn't find the crew info in the body
 * drop the hyphen from "more-compact" and "most-important"
 * there is a bit of ENGVAR action going on, centimetre and armor, for example
 * "The sinking of Szent István revealed..." bit could go in the Assessment section
 * the sentence beginning "When in the spring of 1909..." doesn't have an object. Suggest deleting "When"
 * All of this should be addressed with the exception of the 90 degree issue. I'll have to do research on that. Please let me know if you have any issues or outstanding questions. Looking forward to the rest of the review!--White Shadows Let’s Talk 03:09, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Rangefinder issue has been reworded.


 * German Grand Admiral Alfred von Tirpitz should just be Tirpitz


 * Done


 * given this has already been mentioned, suggest "when Montecuccoli sent the officer to obtain recommendations..."


 * Done


 * suggest "already contentious naval arms race. however "


 * Done


 * " in the at Pola"


 * Done


 * suggest "growing Austrian Navy League"


 * Done


 * should it be "The title ship of the class" or "The lead ship/namesake of the class"?


 * Viribus Unitis was the lead ship of the class. Tegetthoff would be classified as the title ship of the class.


 * link Wilhelm von Tegetthoff, I know he's already linked in the table, but it is useful for the reader, who may just skim over the table
 * Done


 * my understanding is that it is field marshal, not field marshall. Unless that a US spelling?


 * Typo. Fixed!


 * suggest "choosing to name the first ship using his own personal motto..."


 * Done


 * the Footnotes all need citations


 * I always have trouble attaching citations to footnotes. Whenever I try to do so, it bugs out the footnote. Do you know why that happens?
 * I don't use the efn template, instead I use the refn template, which, combined with the group=lower-alpha field creates Notes/Footnotes that can contain citations. Have a look at the Notes in 250t-class torpedo boat to see how it works. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:50, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This is going to take me a very long time to rework the footnotes in that format, and then find the appropriate citations for each of them...as I added the footnotes at random intervals during my research and writing. I don't have the exact page numbers of even the exact source for any of them. I'll have to go through all of my works to locate them.
 * This is the only thing outstanding so far as I am concerned. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:44, 4 November 2018 (UTC)


 * suggest moving the sentence beginning "Prinz Eugen was commissioned... be moved to the end of the para, as it is currently out of sequence, and we are first told of the assassination, then learn that FF refused to attend a launch


 * If I move it to the end of the paragraph, the section will be broken up awkwardly because the end of that paragraph as well as the following paragraph deals with Szent István. Moving the bit about Prinz Eugen in-between would break that all up awkwardly.


 * suggest " to until 17 January 1914"


 * Done


 * "Hungarian Prime Minister István Tisza", as he has already been introduced (although not as PM)
 * I think the man you mean is János Teleszky
 * Done

down to History. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:55, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think they were "missions", more "voyages" or "cruises"
 * Fixed


 * you can drop pre-dreadnought battleship from Zrínyi, as you'ver already introduced her
 * Done


 * Malta is not in the eastern Med or Levant
 * Good catch. Fixed.


 * link smallpox and meningitis
 * Done


 * "Archduke Franz Ferdinand" could just be "the Archduke" at this stage, I suggest going through and using "the Archduke" for him at every mention after he is introduced, as I can't see any other archduke's being mentioned
 * Do you think it would be acceptable to refer to him as just "Franz Ferdinand" rather than "the Archduke"?


 * "exactly one month before Archduke Franz Ferdinand..." is presaging future events, I'd just remove it and let events unfold as they do, chronologically
 * state Admiral Spaun was a scout cruiser here
 * Done


 * link mobilization
 * Done


 * " light cruiser SMS Breslau" as she has been introduced already
 * Done


 * delete "scout cruiser" from Admiral Spaun
 * Done

down to 1914–1915. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:53, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Replies above.--White Shadows Let’s Talk 19:06, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


 * link Foreign Ministry of Austria-Hungary
 * Done


 * drop the hyphen from "Tegetthoff-class" as it is not being used as an adjective here, there is a later example of Radetzky-class and Tegetthoff-class as well
 * So the hyphen needs to be removed everywhere?
 * If you are referring to the "Tegetthoff-class ships" or similar, where it is followed by a noun (ie ships), it should be hyphenated as a compound adjective, but if you are just referring to the "Tegetthoff class" without a noun following, class is the noun and Tegetthoff is the adjective and they shouldn't be hyphenated. English grammar, it screws with your sanity... Maybe can explain it better than me? Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 10:20, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That's exactly right. When "Tegetthoff" is the adjective that describes the noun "class", you don't need a hyphen. The hyphen is only needed when "Tegetthoff class" is the adjective that describes "ships". Parsecboy (talk) 10:42, 20 October 2018 (UTC)


 * So just to clarify, we're going to remove the hyphens (for the most part), and that also applies to other classes mentioned in the text as well, right? Just want to make sure I properly address this!--White Shadows Let’s Talk 14:27, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I've done it so you can see the difference. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:44, 4 November 2018 (UTC)


 * move link to Emperor Karl I to first mention
 * Done


 * Maximilian Njegovan should just be Njegovan at this stage
 * Done


 * p r ose difficulties
 * Fixed


 * consistency between Allied Powers and Allied powers and U-Boats and U-boats
 * drop the hyphen from per-hour
 * Done


 * "Furthermore, the newly formed state had also not yet publicly dethroned" dethroned is not the word here, that would require them to remove him from power. This is more of a lack of public rejection
 * Looks like someone beat me to fixing this.


 * "the transfer being still unknown to Italy" as it was obviously known within the A-H Empire
 * Done


 * "until 1920 when that"
 * Done


 * "off of Toulon"
 * Done


 * Aus meiner Dienstzeit needs an OCLC, which can be found here
 * Done. Thanks!


 * United States Naval Institute Proceedings needs an ISSN, which can also be found at Worldcat
 * Done


 * Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand von Österreich-Este needs an OCLC, see Worldcat
 * Done


 * Warship International needs an ISSN
 * Done


 * Marine—Gestern, Heute also needs an OCLC
 * Done


 * I assume that Aichelburg would be consulted before a FAC nom?
 * If I can possibly get a hold of it, I will include it for sure. I have a virtual library of books on this subject now...I personally own over a dozen books, journals, articles, magazines, and other sources that cover the Tegetthoff class, but I have never been able to get a copy of this despite months of searching.


 * My comment about the size of the article will especially apply at FAC. Basically it is too long, and parts need to be branched off it to bring it down to a readable size. I won't oppose here on that basis, but I might at FAC, as might others.
 * I know it's very long...I'm not sure how to branch off the article however, and it kills me to cut information out. If you've got any suggestions (even very broad ones) to throw around I'd love to hear them because I don't want the length of all things to potentially kill an FAC.
 * FWIW, I'd spin off Austro-Italian naval arms race including the table for starters, leaving just a basic one para summary. The Funding section could be seriously reduced in size to just summarise the various machinations, the level of detail is just too granular. But in general, a more summary style should be taken across the whole article, rather than including every little detail. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:20, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I do plan on creating a separate article for the Austro-Italian naval arms race similar to what I did over at Austro-Italian ironclad arms race...it's just such a large topic that I haven't been able to get around to it, and my editing has fallen off a cliff this month due to work and other real life commitments. That said, I do intend to create the article and I'll definitely take your advice of moving large parts of this over to said article when it's created. That will have to take place before I take this to FAC.--White Shadows Let’s Talk</b> 14:27, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

That's me done. I'll respond to the queries as we go. Great job with this. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:41, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Replies above. Thank you very much for the review!--<b style="color:#003153">White Shadows</b> <b style="color:#DC143C">Let’s Talk</b> 00:25, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments by AustralianRupert
G'day, I took a quick look. I have a couple of really minor nitpicks: AustralianRupert (talk) 04:09, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * A few replies below.--<b style="color:#003153">White Shadows</b> <b style="color:#DC143C">Let’s Talk</b> 02:52, 5 November 2018 (UTC)


 * please check the English variation. I see US "armor" but also British "millimetre";
 * This should be fixed.


 * suggest cropping "File:Ramberg - Bombarding of Ancona, 1915, HGM, 2017-03-08.jpg" to remove the frame. That will focus the eye more on the image
 * I've wanted to do that for a while now, but I wasn't sure I was allowed to edit the photo as such.
 * I think it should be okay if you upload a new version with "(cropped)" or something similar in the name. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC)


 * in the References, check the punctuation in Morton (specifically the space before the colon and the hyphen, which should be an endash)
 * I'm not following here.
 * I have tweaked these for you now with this edit: AustralianRupert (talk) 04:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC)


 * same as above for Stevenson
 * is there a page range for Sieche's chapter in Gardiner?
 * Yes there is. Let me haul the book out of my closet and check what those page ranges are.


 * suggest adding a translation for Kiszling's title
 * How would that go about for the book template? Is there a section that can be added for translating a title?
 * G'day, yes, there is a field called "|trans-title=" which can be added to the cite book template. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC)


 * same as above for the Conrad and Koudelka works
 * same as above for the work in the Further reading section
 * check the titles for hyphen/endash errors
 * "New York, NY" --> I think by convention we have in past just used "New York" here
 * Would this entail removing the state abbreviations from other cities as well? I kept "NY" in there for consistency's sake
 * No, just "New York". Its a minor point, thouh, so I won't die in a ditch over it. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC)


 * some of the ISBNs are inconsistently hyphenated, for example compare Greger with Halpern 1971
 * inconsistent style, compare "Hore, Battleships, p. 180." and " with "Sondhaus 1994, pp. 274–275",
 * This was done because Hore had two works published the same year. "Battleships" refers to the work on that subject, while he also had something published related to Ironclads. Since this article doesn't use the second citation, I'll change that back to "2006".
 * No worries, I sometimes use "2006a" and "2006b" in those instances. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Follow on comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 05:42, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * On 29 October the: probably needs an introductory comma (there are a few other examples where this might be required)
 * I haven't read the article top to bottom yet, sorry
 * are the citations in the lead necessary? Usually, unless something is a quote, or particularly controversial, citations aren't really needed in the lead as everything should be referenced in the body
 * is the table of comparative naval strength necessary for this article? I can see why it would be important in an article on the Austro-Italian naval arms race, but it is probably a bit much for this article, IMO
 * there are still some vestiges of British English variation, for instance "draught", "calibre" and "harbour"
 * In order to guarantee funding for the ships: this sentence is quite long, suggest splitting. Perhaps this might work: "The Rothschild family in Austria owned the Witkowitz Ironworks and the Creditanstalt Bank, and had significant assets in both the Škoda Works and the Stabilimento Tecnico Triestino. To guarantee funding from the family, Archduke Franz Ferdinand personally courted Albert Salomon Anselm von Rothschild in order to obtain his family's monetary support until the government could buy the ships"?
 * 30 Italian soldiers and 38 civilians were killed, while an additional 150 were wounded in the attack: per MOS:NUMNOTES it is best to avoid starting a sentence with a numeral
 * same as above for 89 sailors and officers died in the sinking, 41 of them from Hungary
 * same as above for 66 Allied planes dropped over 200 bombs...
 * was done with little: seems a little awkward in terms of wording
 * While this was going on the... --> "Meanwhile,"?
 * ...was in the process of tearing itself apart along ethnic and nationalist lines --> "...was on the verge of splitting along ethnic and nationalist lines"?
 * The Italians did not know that the Austrian government had handed over Viribus Unitis, along with most of the Austro-Hungarian fleet, to the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs: this is probably unnecessary as the first part of the paragraph already says "the transfer being still unknown to Italy"
 * Faced with the prospect of being given an ultimatum to hand over the former Austro-Hungarian warships, the National Council agreed to hand over the ships beginning on 10 November 1918 --> "Faced with the prospect of being given an ultimatum, the National Council agreed to hand over the form Austro-Hungarian warships beginning on 10 November 1918}}?
 * in the lead there are a lot of overlinked terms, for instance; Fiume, Pola, Bombardment of Ancona, Austro-Hungarian Navy, Otrango Barrage, and many of the ship names (these should all probably only be linked once)
 * in the body, Reichsrat and World War II are overlinked
 * "Sieche, Zeittafel, p. 137" --> "Sieche 1985, p. 137"
 * same as above for "Sieche, Zeittafel, pp. 138–140"
 * in the References, the entry for Prasky: No. 2 (1 6) -- is this "16", or is ther something missing between the 1 and the 6?
 * the sources on face value look reliable to me, although I wasn't able to check the non English language ones and wasn't sure about a few the website. With your knowledge of the sources, could you please explain how the websites and foreign language sources cited meet the RS requirements?

Withdrawal
Nom withdrawn, will close accordingly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:43, 2 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.