The text of the entry was:Did you know ... that the fourErsatz Monarch-class battleship planned for theAustro-Hungarian Navy were expected to cost 82 millionkronen each, but none were ever completed?
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Ships, a project to improve allShip-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, pleasejoin the project, or contribute to theproject discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see thefull instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips
This article is within the scope of theMilitary history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see alist of open tasks. To use this banner, please see thefull instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Austria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles aboutAustria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, pleasejoin the project.AustriaWikipedia:WikiProject AustriaTemplate:WikiProject AustriaAustria
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Hungary, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofHungary on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.HungaryWikipedia:WikiProject HungaryTemplate:WikiProject HungaryHungary
I'd recommend a thorough copy-edit before taking this higher than GA. Done--Diannaa(Talk)
You've got a mix of measurements; i.e., 350 mm guns in the lead, but 13.5 inch guns later, and then 305 mm guns after that. Done--Diannaa(Talk)
You've also got a mixture of British/American spellings (i.e., the convert templates are giving units like "millimetre" but you've got "caliber" and "armor." If you're sticking with American English, you can add the parameter "sp=us" to the convert templates to get the proper spelling. Also, "tonne" is the British spelling for "metric ton," so you need to ensure standardization for that as well. Done--Diannaa(Talk)
There are a number of conversions needed, for example, the displacement figures for Pitzinger's three proposals and the engine horsepower figure. Done I did nothing with the horsepower/kilowatt conversion as neither of these is a metric unit. The equivalent metric unit to the kilowatt-hour is themegajoule. --Diannaa(Talk)
For the caliber figures, it should always be, for example, "45-caliber guns." The caliber length is a compound adjective, so it should be hyphenated. So should bore diameters, unless you're abbreviating them. So "305-millimeter guns" but not "305-mm guns". Done--Diannaa(Talk)02:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"better seaworthiness" - better than what? TheTegetthoffs? This should be made clear.
What makesthis website reliable? The book most of the information comes from appears to be widely available in libraries (seeworldcat) - it would be better to replace the citations to the website with the book.
Well, there's a problem; the two possible names don't appear to come from the Fitzsimmons book. Try to get the book and see if there's anything else useful in it.Parsecboy (talk)15:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest I should have removed those names a long time ago. Those names are only speculative as the AH Navy had no names for them until they were launched (which never happened) Those are only guesses as to the possible names of two of the battleships. Still, I'll try to look around and see if I can find a source to them...--White ShadowsI ran away from you16:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Same withthis one. I know information on this class can be hard to come by, but it's better to find books than websites of questionable reliability. You might try getting a copy of Siegfried Breyer'sBattleships and Battle Cruisers, 1905-1970; it too is pretty widely available (seehere for worldcat listings) so you should be able to get it via ILL.
Well, no, the relevant date is the date of publication, not when the photo was taken. You'd need to find a source that tells you when and where the image was first published. For instance, theGWPDA has an album of naval photos all with the original publication information.This photo ofBluecher was first published inThe Book of History-The World's Greatest War-Vol. XIIII in 1920, so it's PD in the US (anything published before 1923 in the US or abroad is PD in the US).Parsecboy (talk)15:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, copyright law is ridiculously complicated. It took me quite a long time to get the understanding of it that I have, and I am by no means an expert.Parsecboy (talk)16:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are some problems that need to be fixed, but the article has legs. I'll be happy to leave the review open as long as you need to get those two books. I strongly suspect Sokol's book will come in handy here as well, once you get that.Parsecboy (talk)15:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would seem to be that these ships would have been built inTrieste on theAdriatic, and based there, but that is a supposition drawn from the shipyard name, and from theSMS Wien article. It would not be clear to the average reader. --DThomsen8 (talk)13:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
b(MoS):
Done--Diannaa(Talk)
.jpg)
