Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Conte di Cavour-class battleship/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:04, 15 June 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Conte di Cavour-class battleship

[edit]

Conte di Cavour-class battleship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These battleships had a curious history. Virtually inactive during World War I, one ship was sunk by a magazine explosion in harbor (cause unknown) and the other two were given the most extensive reconstructions done on a battleship by any nation between the wars. One was crippled by the British attack at Taranto and under repair for the rest of World War II. The other was lightly damaged by the longest-range hit ever made at the Battle of Calabria and was later transferred to the Soviet Union as war reparations. She was sunk in 1955 by long-buried German mines in Sevastopol harbor. The article has a MilHist A-class review last month and I've tweaked it a little in preparation for this nomination.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should "The armor protecting the barbettes was reinforced 50-millimeter (2.0 in) plates" be "The armor protecting the barbettes was reinforced with 50-millimeter (2.0 in) plates". Otherwise the new Barbette armour is thinner than the old. ϢereSpielChequers 10:12, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:11, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Comments Support Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Damn, that's a really low-quality lead image (no offense to you, of course; book/magazine scans can only be so good). It may be worth it to email someone in the Italian Wikimedia chapter to see if they can poke the Italian Navy into releasing an image or two. That's what they are (nominally) there for, anyway. Let me know if you'd want help; I can ask around to see who would be the best person to contact.
    • Have you noticed the work being done on the Italian Wikipedia's Classe Conte di Cavour? It looks like they use some references you don't, so if he/she speaks English, that could also be a helpful source.
    • The Conte di Cavour-class ships were the first full class of dreadnoughts in the Regia Marina ... – isn't that a bit of a technicality? Dante Alighieri could be considered a one-ship class.
    • An Italian general and his staff were murdered on Corfu in 1923 and Benito Mussolini was not satisfied with the Greek Government's response so he ordered Italian troops to occupy the island. – run-on sentence and it's of unclear relevance until you get to the next sentence.
      • Rephrased.
    • The fleets spotted each other in the middle of the afternoon and the escorting cruisers were the first to fire, although without effect. The Italian battleships opened fire first at 15:53 at a range of nearly 29,000 yards (27,000 m) and the two leading British battleships, HMS Warspite and Malaya, returned fire a minute later. Three minutes after opening fire, shells from Giulio Cesare began to straddle Warspite which made a small turn and increased speed, to throw off the Italian ship's aim, at 16:00. – fire, fire, opened fire, fire fire fire :-)
    • The German submarine U-596 unsuccessfully attacked the ship in the Gulf of Taranto in early March 1944. – this may be just my curiosity speaking, but where was the Caesare going in 1944, as it was after the Italian surrender? Egypt?
    • This isn't quite up to your normal prose quality. It may be worth asking a copyeditor to look over it (e.g. John?) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 11:10, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll see if I can get Dank to look it over. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm sorry, I don't have time any more to do the first pass. (I know it would be the first pass, because for instance "Italy lacked the ability to build larger guns," is missing a period at the end of the sentence.) After someone has done a prose review, I'll hop in with some comments. - Dank (push to talk) 14:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question Per this, shouldn't the article be in British English? --John (talk) 11:30, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow, John. - Dank (push to talk) 14:17, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think he's thinking of MOS:RETAIN, but I also think that'd be making a mountain out of a molehill... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:43, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Dank (push to talk)

Support Dana boomer (talk) 11:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC) Comments[reply]

  • Design and description - Conversions should be standardized to either inch (mm) or mm (inch). In general, conversions need to be standardized to have either standard or metric first - in the armament section yards are first, but in the armor section meters are first.
  • Design and description, "The ships took four to five years to build, leaving them inferior in protection and armament to their contemporaries in most foreign navies" - What does the length of building time have to do with their inferiority?
    • Giorgerini actually says: "The ships were not, therefore, completed until 1914–15 so, when the class was commissioned, other navies had dreadnoughts of the same age, but more heavily armed, better protected, and, in some cases, faster."
      • Could we clarify this in the text? Dana boomer (talk) 01:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not seeing what the issue is here; the sentence from the article seems a fair summary of the source. What's missing? I'm happy to take suggestions.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Maybe something along the lines of "Taking advantage of the length of time that it took to build and commission the ships, other countries were able to build dreadnoughts that were superior in protection and armament." I'm not wedded to that wording, but I'm basically looking for a direct textual link between the build time and the inferiority. At the moment, the sentence reads more like two unconnected pieces of information jammed together with a comma. Dana boomer (talk) 11:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Design and description, "Construction was delayed by late deliveries of the 305-millimeter guns, armor plates and labor shortages." I don't think that construction was delayed by late deliveries of labor shortages, which is how this currently reads.
    • Rephrased.
  • Design and description - what is Terni cemented? An alternate name for Krupp armor, or the Italian's name for their process?
  • Propulsion, "10 kn (19 km/h; 12 mph)" Why the sudden abbreviation for knots?
    • Fixed.
  • Forecastle should be linked on first occurrence, rather than later on as it currently is.
    • Fixed
  • Modifications - What does "license-built" mean?
    • Linked
  • Service, "The explosion blew a hole clean through the ship," "clean through" is a bit...unencyclopedic? Maybe "completely through"?

A few issues, mostly minor, I think. Dana boomer (talk) 00:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replies above. Dana boomer (talk) 01:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Replies above. I have changed to support, as the last remaining issue is not significant enough to withhold featured status. Dana boomer (talk) 11:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate cmt -- image review, anyone? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check all OK (PD). Sources provided. Author information provided, where possible.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Conte_di_Cavour-class_battleship/archive1&oldid=859516632"