 | SMS Balaton has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: April 16, 2019. (Reviewed version). |
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg)
False information
edit"Balaton was laid down by Ganz-Danubius at their shipyard in Porto Ré in the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia of the Austro-Hungarian Empire on 6 November 1911..." -- False information.
The ship wasn't build in Porto Ré, but in the shipyard of Ganz-Danubius in Fiume. The city from 1868 belonged directly to Hungary as Corpus separatum. So the correct sentence should be:
Balaton was laid down by Ganz-Danubius at their shipyard in Fiume in the Kingdom of Hungary of the Austro-Hungarian Empire on 6 November 1911...
Please, stick to the facts, not fantasy.Szegedi László (talk) 19:22, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- That's not what my sources say. The Fiume shipyard was busy with the Novara class scout cruisers.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:38, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- You are trying to systematically falsify the history. I am sorry, but I should be straight, because you have already two times deleted the same correct information described above for your falsified one. So, first of all, in Porto Ré no battleships were built that time, just during early and late 18th century (like the Maria Anna in 1785). The Porto Ré shipyards were comisioned only with some repair works, at the beginning of 20th century. (By the way, before 1868 Porto Ré was also part of the Hungarian maritime province - Tengermellék, Littorale hungaricum, from the Middle Ages, then from 1776 [August 9th, and again from April 23 1779 etc] along with Fiume, Buccari, Hreljin and Vinodol.) The only shipyards building warships for the Austro-Hungarian Navy were the Stabilimento Tecnico Triestino (and with some restrictions the Pola Arsenal), and the Ganz-Danubius in Fiume (headquarters in Budapest). In 1905, they bought up the shipyards Howaldt és Társa in Fiume (!!!), and got a commission (from the Hungarian financial government) for the Kaiman, Balaton and Helgoland classes. Your information is also incorrect as regards Novara, because she belonged to the Helgoland class. No Novara class existed at all. Novara was laid down (in Fiume) on 9 December 1912, and Balaton was lauched (in Fiume) on 16 November 1912. So, your argument, they were "busy" with "Novara class" is just coming from the air. Furthermore, the shipyards were also able to produce not just one ship (and U-boat) at the same time, of course. I think that you there in America also need a further education as regards political conditions in the area. So, just for your edification: the Austro-Hungarian Empire consisted of two compeer parts: Austria and Hungary. These two parts had different provinces and autonomous parts, like Tyrol and Carinthia in Austria, and Transylvania and Croatia in Hungary, respectively (with his autonomous parliament: Sabor, which sent delegates to the All-Hungarian diet). Within the Croatian coast, there also existed the Hungarian Littorale, which belonged directly under the Hungarian diet. So, first of all, no "Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia" existed as real (!!!) that time, just as part of the Kingdom of Hungary, i. e. the Holy Crown of St Stephen. Secondly, these shipyards existed within the Hungarian Littorale, not Croatia, and the ships also were built from Hungarian money, as a result of the fianacial negotiations of Austrian and Hungarian delegations, which were authorized to approve the budget for building new warships, among others. (That is the reason, why she has a Hungarian name, after the Lake Balaton.) So your attempt to systematically pushing the belief that these ships were built in a non existing country, and in the incorrect shipyard, is nothing else than a systematical falsification of history, and I am already fed up with the diligence of some exponents of various folks, who try to put into reality concepts, and fictive history (all along the Wikipedia) that are clear anachronisms (i. e. falsifications) according to the common sense, and historiography. (It is in no regard different from the Goebbelsian propaganda: the more you repeat a lie, the more it becomes "reality".) Undoubtly, the misconcept of "Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia" is highly out of place amongst these concepts. Before (and after) 1918, it was just a plain royal title within the titulature of Hungarian kings (Dei gratia Vngarie, Jerusalem et Sicilie, Dalmatie, Croatie, Rame, Servie, Gallicie, Lodomerie, Cumanie, Bulgarieque Rex... for example), not a sovereign kingdom (like Hungary). (Maybe in your logics Rama and Lodomeria etc. were also sovereign kingdoms, not just plain royal titles.) "Thank you" for being part of Goebbelsian propaganda on Wikipedia!!!Szegedi László (talk) 09:13, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- You have failed to provide sources that state that these ships were built in Fiume. Please do so or you will be reverted again. Your opinion that Fiume was the only shipyard available to the Hungarians is irrelevant without proof that you have failed to provide, merely making baseless assertions. The first two Novara-class cruisers were laid down in 1911 and the yard was being enlarged to handle SMS Szent István, laid down at the beginning of 1912, when the Tátras were being planned so it seems entirely reasonable that the k.u.k. Kriegsmarine chose to built them at another facility, even though it would take extra time because they'd not built warships their size before.
- Please read the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia article. You are correct that it was united with the Kingdom of Hungary as part of the Lands of the Crown of Saint Stephen, but it had its own internal self-government, unlike Transylvania, etc., and perhaps I'm splitting hairs in preferring to use that, but I'm okay with that. I find your tone in your comments very disrespectful; I need no education from you on the internal situation of Austria-Hungary, nor in the history of Ganz-Danubius when you provide no sources, only empty rhetoric accusing me in perpetuating the big lie.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:43, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Greger says the whole class was built by Danubius at Porto Ré (rather than Fiume), so does Conway's. As Conways explicitly states that Danubius got the order for political reasons, its not surprising they ended up at a subsidiary shipyard.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:05, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- You are trying to systematically falsify the history. I am sorry, but I should be straight, because you have already two times deleted the same correct information described above for your falsified one. So, first of all, in Porto Ré no battleships were built that time, just during early and late 18th century (like the Maria Anna in 1785). The Porto Ré shipyards were comisioned only with some repair works, at the beginning of 20th century. (By the way, before 1868 Porto Ré was also part of the Hungarian maritime province - Tengermellék, Littorale hungaricum, from the Middle Ages, then from 1776 [August 9th, and again from April 23 1779 etc] along with Fiume, Buccari, Hreljin and Vinodol.) The only shipyards building warships for the Austro-Hungarian Navy were the Stabilimento Tecnico Triestino (and with some restrictions the Pola Arsenal), and the Ganz-Danubius in Fiume (headquarters in Budapest). In 1905, they bought up the shipyards Howaldt és Társa in Fiume (!!!), and got a commission (from the Hungarian financial government) for the Kaiman, Balaton and Helgoland classes. Your information is also incorrect as regards Novara, because she belonged to the Helgoland class. No Novara class existed at all. Novara was laid down (in Fiume) on 9 December 1912, and Balaton was lauched (in Fiume) on 16 November 1912. So, your argument, they were "busy" with "Novara class" is just coming from the air. Furthermore, the shipyards were also able to produce not just one ship (and U-boat) at the same time, of course. I think that you there in America also need a further education as regards political conditions in the area. So, just for your edification: the Austro-Hungarian Empire consisted of two compeer parts: Austria and Hungary. These two parts had different provinces and autonomous parts, like Tyrol and Carinthia in Austria, and Transylvania and Croatia in Hungary, respectively (with his autonomous parliament: Sabor, which sent delegates to the All-Hungarian diet). Within the Croatian coast, there also existed the Hungarian Littorale, which belonged directly under the Hungarian diet. So, first of all, no "Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia" existed as real (!!!) that time, just as part of the Kingdom of Hungary, i. e. the Holy Crown of St Stephen. Secondly, these shipyards existed within the Hungarian Littorale, not Croatia, and the ships also were built from Hungarian money, as a result of the fianacial negotiations of Austrian and Hungarian delegations, which were authorized to approve the budget for building new warships, among others. (That is the reason, why she has a Hungarian name, after the Lake Balaton.) So your attempt to systematically pushing the belief that these ships were built in a non existing country, and in the incorrect shipyard, is nothing else than a systematical falsification of history, and I am already fed up with the diligence of some exponents of various folks, who try to put into reality concepts, and fictive history (all along the Wikipedia) that are clear anachronisms (i. e. falsifications) according to the common sense, and historiography. (It is in no regard different from the Goebbelsian propaganda: the more you repeat a lie, the more it becomes "reality".) Undoubtly, the misconcept of "Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia" is highly out of place amongst these concepts. Before (and after) 1918, it was just a plain royal title within the titulature of Hungarian kings (Dei gratia Vngarie, Jerusalem et Sicilie, Dalmatie, Croatie, Rame, Servie, Gallicie, Lodomerie, Cumanie, Bulgarieque Rex... for example), not a sovereign kingdom (like Hungary). (Maybe in your logics Rama and Lodomeria etc. were also sovereign kingdoms, not just plain royal titles.) "Thank you" for being part of Goebbelsian propaganda on Wikipedia!!!Szegedi László (talk) 09:13, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Why are you using just secondary sources, written with doubtful intentions? For Fiume see the article in Hungarian Wikipedia, SMS Balaton. As regards Porto Ré, it's at the Eastern side of Bay of Bakar, as part of the Kvarner Gulf. These are two neighbor cities. The shipyards there belonged to Ganz-Danubius, with headquarters in Budapest. (So the shipyards there were not Croatian, but Hungarian and the ships there also were built as a result of Hungarian commission and money, not Croatian, as you trying to believe. Furthermore, the shipyards there also were located on the primary Hungarian territory, i. e. the Hungarian Littorale (with Fiume as capital city), not the secondary Hungarian territory, i. e. Croatia, or in some mysterious Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia.) Your knowledge is also inappropriate as regards the Transylvanian and Croatian diets. Again, I do not understand why are you enter into discussion here with only some minor knowledge about the topic. You say, Transylvania hasn't [never] self government, unlike Croatia. If this is your opinion, I would also like to ask to confirm your evidently false statement with some sources, but I will not dare, because it is OK when you are saying nonsense. (As I can see, you claiming the sources only for my statements, but being satisfied with the misleading information, you was trapped in.) In reality, the Trasylvanian diet started its function on legal (!!!) grounds, when John I, king of Hungary fled to Transylvania (1527) after the Battle of Mohács (1526). (Before that, the territory was governed by the vaivode, with similar functions like the bans in Croatia, Slavonia etc.) It was also the origins of Principality of Transylvania, ruled by princes, and governed by the Transylvanian Diet between 1541 (when Turks occupied Buda) and 1865 (the union of Transylvania and Hungary). This diet also voted (!) for the Prince, the ruler of Transylvaia. If you need further sources on these topics, please read some serious books not the corresponding articles on the en:Wikipedia, because the information there is mostly distorted, and wacky. This is even more true as regards the Croatian diet, called Sabor. Initially, this or these was/were only local diet(s) convened by the ban(s) of Croatia, Slavonia, Dalmatia etc. The ban(s) was appointed (!) by the King of Hungary (not elected by the nobility like in Transylvania). (Most of the bans came from the Hungarian noble families.) These diets served only to discuss some local topics, without any legal consequence or local authority. During Turkish wars (after 1526) these diets were still impermanent local gatherings. However, during 19th century, they already were seen as a form of self-government of Croatia. So, what happened here? As we can see, during the insecure times of Turkish wars a stealth legislation started to legitimize these impermanent gatherings into a permanent self government. However, all this happened without any (!!!) legal authorization from the side of Hungarian diet. So a provisional practice came into reality on illegal way, by means of unspoken separatism. These territories (Croatia, Slavonia, Dalmatia) had in the titulature of Hungarian Kings the ranks of a kingdom, as a result of the 1091 union (inheritance) of Hungary and Croatia. Furthermore, during Arpadian, and Angevin times, some royal princes also were appointed as co-rulers, mainly in Slavonia (mostly with the ducal, rarely with the royal title). In a nutshell, that is the story of the so called Kingdom of Slavonia, Croatia etc. So, I am just asking, were these states independent, or were they in personal union with Hungary, at least? (That means, can we use here the accurate definition of personal union: "personal union is the combination of two or more states that have the same monarch while their boundaries, laws, and interests remain distinct.") If they were independent, I am just asking, how many Croatian, Slavonian, Dalmatian kings were crowned in Zagreb from 1091, as kings of these territories? None, nothing, zero, because these territories were not independent, and even not in personal union with Hungary, but only clasped territories of Hungary, with an appointed ban over the Croatian diet, which (by the way) came into being by means of stealth legislation. In Habsburg monarchy, there existed several countries and provinces, but (since 1526) only three coronations, i.e. parts of the personal union, with distinct boundaries and laws: the Holy Roman Emperor (then Emperor of Austria), the King of Hungary, and the King of Bohemia. (Distinct boundaries, laws and interests existed mainly between Austria, and Hungary, because Bohemia was a vassal kingdom of the Holy Roman Empire, with same laws and interests, and assimilated Czech nobility.) When the ruler was crowned King of Hungary it automatically, evidently, and unquestionable concerned the territory of Croatia, Dalmatia, Slavonia, as like as Transylvania, Gömör, Zala, Ung etc. There were no two coronations, one for Hungary, and one for Croatia. Only the one and only for Hungary (held mainly in Pressburg), because these countries were not two, or three, but only one. Thus, the titles of King of Croatia, Slavonia, Dalmatia are only decorative elements in the titulature of the Hungarian kings, misused by the 19th century Croatian separatism for its own purpose. That means, no Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia existed in reality, it existed only on paper. So I am asking, would be this mystical, non-existing kingdom be able (and enabled) to build real battleships? Evidently not, just like those existing on paper and in imagination, coming into being at en:Wikipdia, after all. So, the information in your article is highly inaccurate. The formulation of Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia, and the like is a widespread anachronism used throughout the en:Wikipedia, as a result of the diligence and propensity of various folks. As I can see, you was also trapped in by them. This is not your fault but the result of the mentioned expansivity, which I see as a propaganda. You are rather the victim, not a declarator of that. However, such convoluted statements are highly irritating for me. That is the reason, I was so harsh on you. If it was hurtful for you, I do apologize myself. However, the standards of the en:Wikipedia in some topics still remain very very low.Szegedi László (talk) 12:17, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- I never said that Transylvania never had self government, merely that it didn't in 1911. I think that you've confused destroyers (small ships around 1000 t in this period) with battleships of 25,000 t. Porto Ré/Kraljevica was not able to build such large ships and I've never said so. Thanks for the link to the Hungarian wiki article on Balaton, but it fails to provide any sources backing up its assertion that the Tátras were built in Fiume. Corpus separatum (Fiume) shows a 1910 map of the Fiume area and it demonstrates that Porto Ré was not part of the corpus separatum, although I'm not sure that that's what you mean by Littorale Hungaricum. I presume you mean the [tengermellék|]? Thus far you have failed to show me any evidence backing up your assertions regarding the legal status of Porto Ré/Kraljevica before World War I, instead creating a wall of text of irrelevancies. I also find your dismissive attitude towards the [[1]] puzzling as it appears to match the English-language article, especially its limited self-government, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- For the Hungarian Littorale see the maps:
Maybe they are not the most accurate for the given period, but your claim, that any ships were built in the non existing Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia is still more than inaccurate. These are Austro-Hungarian ships (partly built in Hungary), not Croatian. Such a country does not exist that time (only in 1941-43 and since 1991). I think, non existing states can not build existing ships.Szegedi László (talk) 10:31, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- Whatever your beliefs, the ships were built in Porto Ré, not Fiume, and that port was not governed directly by Hungary, but by Croatia-Slavonia. I will, however, expand the builder location information to include the Austro-Hungarian Empire to stop this waste of time.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- For the Hungarian Littorale see the maps:
- I never said that Transylvania never had self government, merely that it didn't in 1911. I think that you've confused destroyers (small ships around 1000 t in this period) with battleships of 25,000 t. Porto Ré/Kraljevica was not able to build such large ships and I've never said so. Thanks for the link to the Hungarian wiki article on Balaton, but it fails to provide any sources backing up its assertion that the Tátras were built in Fiume. Corpus separatum (Fiume) shows a 1910 map of the Fiume area and it demonstrates that Porto Ré was not part of the corpus separatum, although I'm not sure that that's what you mean by Littorale Hungaricum. I presume you mean the [tengermellék|]? Thus far you have failed to show me any evidence backing up your assertions regarding the legal status of Porto Ré/Kraljevica before World War I, instead creating a wall of text of irrelevancies. I also find your dismissive attitude towards the [[1]] puzzling as it appears to match the English-language article, especially its limited self-government, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Why are you using just secondary sources, written with doubtful intentions? For Fiume see the article in Hungarian Wikipedia, SMS Balaton. As regards Porto Ré, it's at the Eastern side of Bay of Bakar, as part of the Kvarner Gulf. These are two neighbor cities. The shipyards there belonged to Ganz-Danubius, with headquarters in Budapest. (So the shipyards there were not Croatian, but Hungarian and the ships there also were built as a result of Hungarian commission and money, not Croatian, as you trying to believe. Furthermore, the shipyards there also were located on the primary Hungarian territory, i. e. the Hungarian Littorale (with Fiume as capital city), not the secondary Hungarian territory, i. e. Croatia, or in some mysterious Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia.) Your knowledge is also inappropriate as regards the Transylvanian and Croatian diets. Again, I do not understand why are you enter into discussion here with only some minor knowledge about the topic. You say, Transylvania hasn't [never] self government, unlike Croatia. If this is your opinion, I would also like to ask to confirm your evidently false statement with some sources, but I will not dare, because it is OK when you are saying nonsense. (As I can see, you claiming the sources only for my statements, but being satisfied with the misleading information, you was trapped in.) In reality, the Trasylvanian diet started its function on legal (!!!) grounds, when John I, king of Hungary fled to Transylvania (1527) after the Battle of Mohács (1526). (Before that, the territory was governed by the vaivode, with similar functions like the bans in Croatia, Slavonia etc.) It was also the origins of Principality of Transylvania, ruled by princes, and governed by the Transylvanian Diet between 1541 (when Turks occupied Buda) and 1865 (the union of Transylvania and Hungary). This diet also voted (!) for the Prince, the ruler of Transylvaia. If you need further sources on these topics, please read some serious books not the corresponding articles on the en:Wikipedia, because the information there is mostly distorted, and wacky. This is even more true as regards the Croatian diet, called Sabor. Initially, this or these was/were only local diet(s) convened by the ban(s) of Croatia, Slavonia, Dalmatia etc. The ban(s) was appointed (!) by the King of Hungary (not elected by the nobility like in Transylvania). (Most of the bans came from the Hungarian noble families.) These diets served only to discuss some local topics, without any legal consequence or local authority. During Turkish wars (after 1526) these diets were still impermanent local gatherings. However, during 19th century, they already were seen as a form of self-government of Croatia. So, what happened here? As we can see, during the insecure times of Turkish wars a stealth legislation started to legitimize these impermanent gatherings into a permanent self government. However, all this happened without any (!!!) legal authorization from the side of Hungarian diet. So a provisional practice came into reality on illegal way, by means of unspoken separatism. These territories (Croatia, Slavonia, Dalmatia) had in the titulature of Hungarian Kings the ranks of a kingdom, as a result of the 1091 union (inheritance) of Hungary and Croatia. Furthermore, during Arpadian, and Angevin times, some royal princes also were appointed as co-rulers, mainly in Slavonia (mostly with the ducal, rarely with the royal title). In a nutshell, that is the story of the so called Kingdom of Slavonia, Croatia etc. So, I am just asking, were these states independent, or were they in personal union with Hungary, at least? (That means, can we use here the accurate definition of personal union: "personal union is the combination of two or more states that have the same monarch while their boundaries, laws, and interests remain distinct.") If they were independent, I am just asking, how many Croatian, Slavonian, Dalmatian kings were crowned in Zagreb from 1091, as kings of these territories? None, nothing, zero, because these territories were not independent, and even not in personal union with Hungary, but only clasped territories of Hungary, with an appointed ban over the Croatian diet, which (by the way) came into being by means of stealth legislation. In Habsburg monarchy, there existed several countries and provinces, but (since 1526) only three coronations, i.e. parts of the personal union, with distinct boundaries and laws: the Holy Roman Emperor (then Emperor of Austria), the King of Hungary, and the King of Bohemia. (Distinct boundaries, laws and interests existed mainly between Austria, and Hungary, because Bohemia was a vassal kingdom of the Holy Roman Empire, with same laws and interests, and assimilated Czech nobility.) When the ruler was crowned King of Hungary it automatically, evidently, and unquestionable concerned the territory of Croatia, Dalmatia, Slavonia, as like as Transylvania, Gömör, Zala, Ung etc. There were no two coronations, one for Hungary, and one for Croatia. Only the one and only for Hungary (held mainly in Pressburg), because these countries were not two, or three, but only one. Thus, the titles of King of Croatia, Slavonia, Dalmatia are only decorative elements in the titulature of the Hungarian kings, misused by the 19th century Croatian separatism for its own purpose. That means, no Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia existed in reality, it existed only on paper. So I am asking, would be this mystical, non-existing kingdom be able (and enabled) to build real battleships? Evidently not, just like those existing on paper and in imagination, coming into being at en:Wikipdia, after all. So, the information in your article is highly inaccurate. The formulation of Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia, and the like is a widespread anachronism used throughout the en:Wikipedia, as a result of the diligence and propensity of various folks. As I can see, you was also trapped in by them. This is not your fault but the result of the mentioned expansivity, which I see as a propaganda. You are rather the victim, not a declarator of that. However, such convoluted statements are highly irritating for me. That is the reason, I was so harsh on you. If it was hurtful for you, I do apologize myself. However, the standards of the en:Wikipedia in some topics still remain very very low.Szegedi László (talk) 12:17, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:SMS Balaton/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Parsecboy (talk · contribs) 12:11, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
I'll do this one too. Parsecboy (talk) 12:11, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- There are a few dupe links
- Link Pelagosa
- Same comment on the May attack on Italy as on the Triglav review
- No idea.
- I'd think the use of "Habsburg" to describe the ships would be non-intuitive to most readers
- If I wanted to be a pedant (and I do!), I'd point out that Entente only refers to French and British (and Russian) ships - since we're including Italian forces, the proper term would be Allied. This would probably apply to the other two articles as well.
- May you be infested with nits!
- Any idea what happened to the ship between Nov. 1918 and 1920? I'd assume the Yugoslavs renamed her? Parsecboy (talk) 18:41, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Busted! I was hoping that I'd elided over that, so I wouldn't have to figure the details of the shenanigans. See how it reads now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:02, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- Hoping to get a different GA reviewer, eh? Do you happen to have the Warship International article by Vego on the Yugoslav Navy? Think I got it from Peacemaker a few years back - anyway, it has some details on the events of November that can help flesh this out a bit more. The issue is whether Balaton was in Pola or Cattaro at the time (I'd assume the latter) - the French occupation commander allowed the Yugoslav crews to remain aboard the ships there until February 1919. Parsecboy (talk) 10:09, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- I figured that I could dive into Bilzer and my Russian-language book on the Tatras whenever I got around to prepping these for ACR and thought that I had enough for "reasonably complete coverage". I do have the Vego article, although I'd forgotten about it. I'd also assume that she was in Cattaro as well, but you know what they say about assumptions! I'm not seeing much else in the article that I think is relevant, although there are a few differences in dates compared Sieche that I'm not sure are worth diving into. Lemme know what you think is worth adding. Maybe Bilzer can confirm or deny their presence in Cattaro and I'd hope that he has more details on their Italian service.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:16, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- Bilzer confirms they were in Pola at the armistice, so there's that settled. You should have the scans now. Parsecboy (talk) 15:47, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- OK, think I've added everything needful, see how it all reads.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:11, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- Looks good, happy to promote now. Parsecboy (talk) 12:20, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
- OK, think I've added everything needful, see how it all reads.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:11, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- Bilzer confirms they were in Pola at the armistice, so there's that settled. You should have the scans now. Parsecboy (talk) 15:47, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- I figured that I could dive into Bilzer and my Russian-language book on the Tatras whenever I got around to prepping these for ACR and thought that I had enough for "reasonably complete coverage". I do have the Vego article, although I'd forgotten about it. I'd also assume that she was in Cattaro as well, but you know what they say about assumptions! I'm not seeing much else in the article that I think is relevant, although there are a few differences in dates compared Sieche that I'm not sure are worth diving into. Lemme know what you think is worth adding. Maybe Bilzer can confirm or deny their presence in Cattaro and I'd hope that he has more details on their Italian service.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:16, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- Hoping to get a different GA reviewer, eh? Do you happen to have the Warship International article by Vego on the Yugoslav Navy? Think I got it from Peacemaker a few years back - anyway, it has some details on the events of November that can help flesh this out a bit more. The issue is whether Balaton was in Pola or Cattaro at the time (I'd assume the latter) - the French occupation commander allowed the Yugoslav crews to remain aboard the ships there until February 1919. Parsecboy (talk) 10:09, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- Busted! I was hoping that I'd elided over that, so I wouldn't have to figure the details of the shenanigans. See how it reads now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:02, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- Quick drive by comment - this statement in the first sentence reads strangely: "built for the German: kaiserliche und königliche Kriegsmarine". Shouldn't there be brackets somewhere in there? (think this is the same with the rest of the class) Cavie78 (talk) 12:44, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- Very good point; I was focused on getting the language template working properly, not how it read.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:14, 14 April 2019 (UTC)