Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Francesco Caracciolo-class battleship

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Assessment

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 Kges1901 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 12:20, 12 December 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Francesco Caracciolo-class battleship edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Parsecboy (talk)

Francesco Caracciolo-class battleship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The Francesco Caracciolo-class battleships were an Italian design begun before the start of World War I in response to the British Queen Elizabeth-class battleships. Had they been completed, they would have been the fastest and most powerful battleships afloat. Even before the Italians joined the war in 1915, shortages of steel and other material significantly slowed their construction and construction was suspended the following year to build ships that could be completed during the war. Italian financial difficulties after the war prevented their completion, although the navy flirted with the idea of converting the most advanced ship into an ocean liner or an aircraft carrier.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:54, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5 edit

Something new? The Italians joined the party. :p

  • with a main battery of eight 381 mm (15 in) guns Link to the gun?
  • She was sold to an Italian shipping firm for conversion Pipe Italian to the Kingdom of Italy.
  • The Francesco Caracciolo class was the first type of super-dreadnought battleship --> "The Francesco Caracciolo class were the first type of super-dreadnought battleship"?
    • No, class in AmEng is always singular
  • with twelve 381-millimeter guns and twenty 152-millimeter (6 in) secondary guns What kind of guns?
  • The turbines were rated at 105,000 shaft horsepower (78,000 kW) Link kW.
  • limits for the Regia Marina was to be 60,000 long tons (61,000 t) Flip the units here.
  • in the infobox "8 × 450 or 533 mm (17.7 or 21.0 in)" is it possible to remove the nought?
    • Not when converting multiple measurements

Source review edit

  • Is it possible to standardise the 10/13-digit ISBNs?
    • Used to be, but I wouldn't do it anyway. Books should use the ISBN they were published with.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:09, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Goldstein and Maurer's book's location is Hoboken but the online editions say totally different. One says in Portland other in Ilford and another one says Oxon, which one is correct?
  • Remove "December" in Ordovini's year.
  • What kind of title edition do you have of Zabecki's book the "World War 2 in Europe" or the "World War II in Europe"?
  • The sources that use page numbers are either chapters or journal articles and it's customary to cite the page range for those, but not for entire books. Parsecboy (talk) 14:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:40, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:09, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@CPA-5:--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks both good to me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:17, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Harrias edit

  • "Armed with a main battery of eight 381 mm (15 in) guns and.." Shouldn't this by hyphenated: 381-mm
    • The hyphen is only used when the unit is spelled out in full, not abbreviated
      • Yeah, I realised that myself and double-checked MOS:NUM which confirmed it. I thought I had deleted this point, sorry. Harrias talk 14:08, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it would be useful to add when the Francesco Caracciolo was broken up for scrap in the lead.
    • Good idea
  • Per MOS:FOREIGNITALIC, use {{lang}} for foreign language terms such as Regia Marina.
    • Huh, who knew? Seems like I have a lot of articles to fix...
  • "..and after Italy entered World War I.." It would be helpful to mention when this happened.
    • Done
  • "Ansaldo proposed converting.." Clarify who or what Ansaldo is.
    • Good idea
  • "In the ongoing negotiations Washington Naval Conference.." Feels like this is missing a word or two; "In the ongoing negotiations at the Washington Naval Conference.." maybe?
    • Fixed
  • "The other three ships had also been dismantled.." No need for "also" in there.
    • Done

Nice, neat article which only has some minor points to be addressed. Good work. Harrias talk 11:08, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Harrias! Parsecboy (talk) 13:52, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, thanks for the prompt response; happy to support. Harrias talk 14:08, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass edit

All images are appropriately licenced, positioned and captioned, although there is no alt text. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:41, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by AustralianRupert edit

Support: G'day, Sturm, nice work. I only have a few comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 08:55, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • the lead mentions a date of 1912-1913, but the body seems to imply it was 1913
  • Cannone da 152/45 is overlinked, but this is probably ok given the way the link is used
  • "Admiral Sechi" --> do we know this person's first name?
  • four new battleships, three cruisers --> suggest linking cruiser here
  • starting in the fall of 1926 --> probably best to provide the month here per MOS:SEASON
  • the proposed tonnage limits for the Regia Marina was to be 61,000 tonnes --> "the proposed tonnage limit for the Regia Marina was to be 61,000 tonnes"
  • in the References, the style for state locations is a little inconsistent. For instance, compare "Annapolis, Maryland" v. "Toledo, OH"
  • the infobox information appears to match the body (no action required)
  • coverage seems adequate given that the class was not completed (no action required)
  • the article appears to be be well referenced (no action required)
    • Thanks for catching these. See if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:25, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • No worries, those changes look good to me. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:30, 9 December 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Francesco_Caracciolo-class_battleship&oldid=930428983"