Talk:SMS Szent István

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:SMS Szent István/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jackyd101 (talk) 23:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, I have reviewed this article against the Wikipedia:good article criteria and although I am not quite prepared to pass the article for GA immediately, I don't think there is a long way to go. I have listed below the principle problems which prevent this article from achieving GA status and I have also appended a list of other comments which, whilst they are not essential for GA, may help in the future development of the article. The article now has seven days to address these issues, and should the contributors disagree with my comments then please indicate below why you disagree and suggest a solution, compromise or explanation. Further time will be granted if a concerted effort is being made to address the problems, and as long as somebody is genuinely trying to deal with the issues raised then I will not fail the article. I am aware that my standards are quite high, but I feel that an article deserves as thorough a review as possible when applying for GA and that a tough review process here is an important stepping stone to future FAC attempts. Please do not take offence at anything I have said, nothing is meant personally and maliciously and if anyone feels aggrieved then please notify me at once and I will attempt to clarify the comments in question. Finally, should anyone disagree with my review or eventual decision then please take the article to WP:GAR to allow a wider selection of editors to comment on the issues discussed here. Well done on the work so far.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Issues preventing promotion

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

"She was enroute to rendezvous with the other dreadnoughts for an attack on the Otranto Barrage scheduled for the following day. " - this sentence in the lead seems to be disconnected with the text around it.

See how it reads now.

The term "she" is used a lot - to reduce confusion among unfamiliar readers, please name the ship whenever it is first mentioned in a paragraph.

Done.

"with the name Hungarian:" - odd word order, I think "Hungarian" should come before "name".

That was caused by the template. See how it reads now.

"and made only one two-day trip to Pag Island" - are you saying that the ship only made one trip lasting two-days? If so, then that sentence needs a comma.

Yes, reworded.

"Only 89 sailors died, partly attributed to the fact" - clarify, i.e. "Only 89 sailors died, the low death toll partly attributed to the fact"

Better phrasing added.

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

  a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

"that negated the snub offered by his heir" - this sounds like an opinion, can we have an individual source for this?

Done.

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

In the lead you mention that the ship was built in Hungary as the result of Hungarian political support for the warship estimates, but I can't see any mention of this in the main body of the article.

Expanded this.

"She was delayed by the start of the war," - what aspects of the ship were delayed - presumably the fitting out, but which parts?

No real information on this.

"The Italians also did their best to liven things up for the crew of the Szent István" - this is rather informal and a bit unencyclopedic (as well as potentially confusing for unfamiliar editors), can it be reworded?

I'm an informal kinda guy, but I've reworded it. But I'm not really happy with the new wording as it lost the parallelism with the first sentence. See what you think.

You are right, it was better the first time. Please change it back if you wish.--Jackyd101 (talk) 08:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

"Linienschiffsleutnant Meusburger of the Tegetthoff as well as an official film crew" - this is not immediately clear whether you mean "with a film crew" or that there was more than one film, slight rewording needed.

Clarified.

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

• It is stable.

  

• It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

  a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

Other comments

(These comments are not essential to passing GAN)

• A sentence in the lead commenting on the ship's weight and armament might help develop a better first impression of the vessel
  • Added, with a cite.
• Do we know why Franz ordered the name changed and why his son refused to attend the launch?
  • No reason is given why Franz changed the name and his son was very anti-Hungarian. This last has been added.
    • It was his nephew who was anti-hungarian.Eregli bob (talk) 14:44, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
• A thought for the consequences section, has there been any comparison between this and the loss of Viribus Unitis later in the year, particularly in relation to the number of casualties? If not then no problem, I was just wondering.
  • Not sure what you're getting at, but they were two entirely different situations. Szent Istvan was at sea and was torpedoed, but took a long time to sink. Viribis Unitis was in harbor and was about to be turned over to the Yugoslavs, IIRC. So I'm not sure how many crewmen were onboard when she was mined.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll try and clarify, although this is non-essential. The low total of 89 men killed is attributed to the men's ability to swim. However when VU was sunk later in the year, inside a harbour with warning that a mine was about to go off, over 300 men were killed - Why was the death toll so much higher in the second instance? I know the ship had been handed over but I remember reading somewhere some years ago that most of the crew had not yet been replaced, only the commanding officers. That same book compared the casualties between the ships and gave a reason why the second was so much higher but I cannot now remember it. I'm afraid I also cannot remember the name of this book or where I found it, but I was wondering if this information appeared in other histories and could be included. Since it seems that it does not and this is a minor point anyway, it doesn't sound like something worth pursuing.--Jackyd101 (talk) 08:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

An excellent article and nice improvements. I'll promote this later today when I have a bit more time. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 08:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I was just about get started on some easier fixes, but I see it was pretty much all handled, good job. Hobartimus (talk) 17:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

K 10

There are many references to "K10 guns".

What does this mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.64.10.11 (talk) 06:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

It's a type of gun manufactured by Krupp. Buggie111 (talk) 13:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I think that they're Škoda Works guns (Kanonen model 1910).--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

File:SMS Szent Istvan.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:SMS Szent Istvan.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:SMS Szent Istvan.png) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Half-sister ships?

This article repeatedly refers to its subject's "half-sister" ships. What is a half-sister ship, and how does it differ from a (full) sister? This should be explained. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 21:26, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes I feel the same.

IceDragon64 (talk) 22:46, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on SMS Szent István. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080917150306/http://www.smsszentistvan.com/photo/Szent%20Istvan%20model/index.html to http://smsszentistvan.com/photo/Szent%20Istvan%20model/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717224454/http://www.vitezwrecks.com/eng/index.php?f=wrecks&up=1&url=scent_istvan& to http://www.vitezwrecks.com/eng/index.php?f=wrecks&up=1&url=scent_istvan&

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:58, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Only two torpedos

There were only two torpedos launched at Szent István, those from MAS 15. MAS 21 fired both of her torpedos at Tegetthoff, none of them hit. In the section "Legacy" there is a hint, that maybe one of MAS 21's torpedoes hit her, but there is no chance for it. It was an assumption in the late 90's that proved to be wrong. These damages were caused by the sinking of the ship (maybe implosion). --Andreas (talk) 13:27, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Do we have any sources that suggest where the other hole came from? It's easy to find sources which suggest one of MAS 21's torpedoes hit the ship. If that assumption is incorrect, we can definitely include a competing theory in the article...we just need to find a source that brings up the alternate theory. Otherwise, we can remove the guess that MAS 21 hit the ship altogether if been documented that such a thing did not happen.--White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 14:30, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

As far as I know the theory about Giuseppe Aonzo with MAS 21 hits Szent István states, that he later denied attacking the Tegetthoff but aimed at the first in line as Rizzo. I do not know what source says this, but the official report of both the MAS-Commanders (Rizzo and Aonzo) agrees, that they were attacking different targets. You can find the reports in this newly issued bulletin by the italian navy:L’azione di Premuda. Aonzo declares in his report (pages 67-68): "Portatomi sulla dritta della seconda grande nave …". One do not need to speak Italian to understand this sentence. Even if Aonzo claims a direct hit on the second in line battleship (which must be a false observation on Tegetthoff), MAS 21 definitely did not hit Szent István.--Andreas (talk) 22:03, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the citation! If you'd like to add it to the article, go right ahead. I think it's worth including this in there.--White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 20:58, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Not this time I think. My Englisch is not the best for sure. Beside implosion there is another theory about the cause of the holes. Maybe the weight of the water inside the engine rooms pulled down the middle section of the ship, while the rooms aft and forward - still filled with air - wanted upwards. This could have bent the structure on the already damaged side of the ship. Here are some drawings of this potential process. --Andreas (talk) 12:25, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Visibility

The article states "At about 3:15 am on 10 June, two Italian MAS boats, MAS-15 and MAS-21, spotted the smoke from the Austrian ships". How did they see something dark at night? Or was the time misleading, and it was already past daybreak? --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 17:43, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

SMS Szent István new book

I recommend to read "Austro-Hungarian Battleships and Battleship Designs 1904-1914" by Mihály Krámli. This 196 p book is on the internet for free. 84.3.130.245 (talk) 16:48, 14 August 2022 (UTC)