Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Italian battleship Leonardo da Vinci

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.

Article promoted by Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 04:20, 11 September 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Italian battleship Leonardo da Vinci

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

Like all of the Italian dreadnoughts in World War I, Leonardo da Vinci was not very active as they were kept in reserve in case the Austro-Hungarian fleet came out to play and the Adriatic was too dangerous for large ships. She was sunk by a magazine explosion in 1916, possibly Austro-Hungarian sabotage or just another propellant explosion as were common in this era. After a heroic salvage effort the ship was refloated upside down and then flipped right-side up in the early 1920, but the Italian navy lacked the money to rebuild her and she was scrapped shortly afterwards. I hope that the reviewers will look for the usual suspects in the article in anticipation of an eventual FAC.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:19, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

Hey Sturm what an interesting article you got, for now, I can tell you that I see the British draught in the infobox. I'll continue in the near future. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:44, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dammit, I even remembered to check that the specs in the infobox and main body matched! Glad you liked it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:57, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Italians blamed Austro-Hungarian saboteurs for her loss Pipe Italians to the Kingdom of Italy.
turbines was provided by 20 Blechynden water-tube boilers What is a Blechynden?
- Uncertain, probably some boiler designer.
maximum speed of 22.5 knots (41.7 km/h; 25.9 mph) from 31,000 shaft horsepower (23,000 kW) Link knots.
reached a speed of 21.6 knots (40.0 km/h; 24.9 mph) Is it possible to round the nought here?
- When using number ranges the template won't let me
ships had a complete waterline armor belt that had a maximum Link armor belt.
increased to 40 millimeters (1.6 in) on the slopes that Link slopes.
- Why?

@Sturmvogel 66: Shouldn't it be linked? I think it should because I sloop is a kind of ship and not everyone knows this kind of ship. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:47, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're confusing sloop with slope, like the slope of a hill.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:41, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my bad. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:12, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

that Austro-Hungarian submarines and minelayers could Link minelayers.
Link Adriatic Sea.
See some British metres here.
In the infobox "Conning tower: 180–280 mm (7.1–11.0 in)" Is it possible to round the nought here?
- See above.

That's anything that I've got. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:08, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching these.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:31, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think this one ready to go in my opinion. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:49, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

This article is in great shape. Just a few minor quibbles:

decap Water in "Water-tube boilers" in the infobox
fix the rounding between the body and infobox for the 3 in guns and TTs
use the designed speed (or actual speed) in the infobox
isn't 80 mm the minimum on the belt? See infobox range
the lower range of the conning tower armor isn't supported by the body
add a ISSN for Warship International

That's all I could find. Nice job. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:39, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, good to hear.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:36, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:04, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the sources look of high quality and reliable. Do the Further reading books add anything not already in the article? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:04, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Zawed

Just a few comments:

"which caused them to be slower and more heavily armored than the first Italian dreadnought, Dante Alighieri".?
- Indeed
"thirteen of these could be mounted on the turret tops, but they could be mounted in 30 different positions...": the close repetition of "could be mounted", suggest rewording.
Armor in the infobox; should the lower number for the turrets be 85mm (the thickness of roof/rear) rather than 240mm?
"use the fleet in an active way": seems a passive way of phrasing. Perhaps "actively deploy the fleet"?
The Halpern and Hore references are not in alphabetical order.

That's it for me. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 08:19, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. See if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:13, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, have added my support. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 11:28, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Images - all three look alright to me. Parsecboy (talk) 14:41, 7 September 2019 (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.