Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Conte di Cavour-class battleship

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.

Conte di Cavour-class battleship

[edit]
Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)


I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe that it meets the criteria.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:11, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • CommentsSupport
    • No dab links [1] (no action required).
    • External links check out [2] (no action required).
    • Images lack Alt Text [3] so you might consider adding it (not and ACR requirement though - suggestion only).
    • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action required).
    • Images are all PD or licenced and seem appropriate to the article (no action required).
    • The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violation [4] (no action required).
    • Some duplicate links which need to be removed per WP:REPEATLINK:
      • casemates
      • Malta
      • Naples
    • "These ships were the first full class of dreadnoughts in the Regia Marina...", which ships?
    • typo here: "took longer to produced...", should be "produce".
    • "Shortly after the end of the war...", which war?
    • This is repetitive: "Two of the existing propeller shafts were removed and the existing turbines...", existing twice.
    • "Casualties included 21 officers and 227 enlisted men...", killed? wounded? or both?
    • Note 7 is missing a page number.
    • Otherwise looks good to me. Anotherclown (talk) 03:01, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support Nice article, bear in mind I am a lay reader when it comes to ships, so some of my comments may reflect this :) Many are just suggestions/nitpicks so don't consider them gospel.

That's a good thing because fresh eyes can pick up stuff that we experienced types think that everybody knows.
  • Completed during the war, none of the three ships saw action; Leonardo da Vinci was sunk by a magazine explosion in 1916 and sold for scrap in 1923; sentence is fragmentary and a little confusing (the implication is they never saw action, ever). I suggest splitting it up and rephrasing.
    • Rewritten.
  • , but the first dreadnought; this is awkward. Perhaps , although the dreadnought Dante Alighieri had been completed in 1913.
    • Done.
  • So when were they built?? The construction section makes no mention of dates! Perhaps you could rephrase the first sentence to incorporate this & address the previous bullet point?
    • Addressed in the lede.
  • You use intended three times in a short space within the first paragraph of the construction section. Is there a more elegant way to phrase this?
    • Good catch. How does it read now?
  • Conte de Cavour; di or de? You use them interchangeably throughout...
    • Ehh, Romance languages, they're all the same! The Italians consistently fail to follow the French spellings that I'm used to.
  • AA guns; first use of this acronym I would suggest using the "anti-aircraft (AA) guns" and link somewhere relevant.
    • Agreed.
  • I linked Levant, but is this the most appropriate word to use? No strong opinion, especially now it is linked.
    • It's what my source uses.
  • The sisters began an extensive reconstruction program in October 1933; oddly phrased.. as inanimate objects how did they begin a program? Perhaps "entered"
    • "Entered" has the exact same problem as inanimate objects find it difficult to enter anything. Ships are usually anthropomorphized, especially when they termed she, so I think this is OK and better than the alternatives.
  • Admiral Andrew Cunningham, commander of the fleet; Just for specificity I'd suggest that you use "the British commander" here.
    • You don't think that mention of the British Fleet in the previous sentence is enough to tell the reader that he's the British commander?
  • which made a small turn and increased speed to throw off the Italian's aim at 1600; missing commas? which made a small turn and increased speed, to throw off the Italian's aim, at 1600
  • forcing four boilers off line as their operators could not breathe which reduced the ship's speed to 18 knots; again, some commas missing here I think?
    • Agreed.
  • Repairs to Giulio Cesare were completed; this is rather sudden, we were only just escaping the brits! :) Where did they go after disengaging?
    • Clarified.
  • Consider reviewing the use of -ly adverbs, in many cases they can be either removed, or replaced with more specific words.
    • I'll keep that in mind.
  • Following the end of the war, Giulio Cesare was allocated to the Soviet Union as war reparations in 1949; "war" is vague, and then you drop in a specific date. I would simply start with "In 1949" and consider linking to Paris Peace Treaties, 1947.
    • What candidates for "war" are there? It serve to transition the reader from wartime experiences to postwar. Good idea on the link.

Otherwise, excellent work. --Errant (chat!) 11:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with your tweaks and/or explanations :) so have a support! --Errant (chat!) 10:45, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Yet another excellent article on a BB class. I have the following comments:

  • "although the first dreadnought, Dante Alighieri" - to be a bit pedantic, I'd suggest adding 'Italian' before 'dreadnought' to avoid any confusion
    • Then we're both pedantic.
  • "Both ships supported Italian operations during the Corfu incident in 1923" - what did this involve?

It's linked, but an Italian general was murdered on Corfu and the apology offered by the Greek gov't was rejected. The Italians landed troops and bombarded the main city there to get satisfaction. Sources are contradictory about who did what and I didn't want to get into it here, as that's better dealt with in the individual ship histories, IMO.

    • OK, but saying that BBs only 'supported' something sounds a bit odd in my view given how powerful these ships were (even though they sometimes did sail around in general support of something or other), so I'd suggest trying to be a bit more specific by the time this goes to FAC - saying something like they 'cruised in support' is an improvement, and 'covered' is better still. Nick-D (talk) 11:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to throw off the Italian's aim" - this possessive apostrophe reads oddly given that the BB's guns were being served by multiple people ('Italian ship's aim' might work better)
    • Agreed.
  • The lead says "She escaped to Malta after Italy surrendered and continued in her role as a training ship for the rest of the war" but the post-surrender training role isn't described or referenced in the body of the article Nick-D (talk) 10:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments have now been addressed Nick-D (talk) 11:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Conte_di_Cavour-class_battleship&oldid=551112976"