Talk:Cannone navale da 381/40/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Kges1901 (talk · contribs) 20:29, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Finally, an article about a naval gun being nominated for GA.

• Were these guns the highest caliber Italian WWI artillery?
  • The later Littorio-class battleships had a gun of the same bore diameter, but longer.
• Were coast defense guns manned by army personnel or navy personnel?
  • It's not entirely clear. During WWI I think that the navy manned the guns, but between the wars, responsibilities appear to have been handed over to Milmart, a Blackshirt naval artillery militia. This last isn't mentioned in any of my sources.
• Kingdom of Italy overlinked in infobox
  • Indeed
• Seven were turned over to the Esercito Italiano (Italian Army) of which four became railroad guns --> Four of the seven turned over to the Esercito Italiano (Italian Army) became railroad guns
• Italy planned a class of four dreadnought battleships - mention that these are what you previously refer to as the Francesco Caracciolo class
  • I think that the link between them will be clear enough if I expand the language in the lead to "dreadnought battleship"
• Both Armstrong and Vickers are British companies, so why refer to Armstrong's as the English design?
  • I'm not sure why, but that's how my sources refer to them. The history of the Italian branches of the British armaments companies is not well documented and it may be that the Vickers-Terni gun was designed in Italy unlike the Armstrong-Pozzuoli gun.
• In ammunition, why is (HE) in parentheses and AP not
  • Stupid computer.
• but the Italy declaration of war on Austria-Hungary in 1915 forced the Regia Marina to suspend construction in favor of higher-priority programs and because of material shortages --> but material shortages and the Italian declaration of war on Austria-Hungary in 1915 forced the Regia Marina to suspend construction in favour of higher-priority programs as the Francesco Caracciolo class article suggests that the material shortages existed before Italy entered WWI
• Cannone da 381/40 AVS appears to be a separate article for the railway gun conversions

More later. Kges1901 (talk) 20:29, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Continuing the review:

• For the Batteria Amalfi description, the technical details should go before the combat service mention
• turret could revolve 360° Suggest integrating this into the technical details as this means it could be described as a rotating turret
• near Brindisi; Think the semicolon should be a colon
• Are batteries female?
  • No idea, why? The Italian in the article is straight from my sources, if that's what you mean.

• test-firing her Armstrong-Pozzuoli guns?

• Ah.

• originally going --> originally planned
• Mention that Italy entered WWII before the detail about the bombardment of Genoa
• Pretty sure that these types of lists need colons and not semicolons
  • Referring to?

• The clause beginning two turrets were built near the port; Batteria Monte Moro

• Got it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:48, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

• and operated by them and the forces of the puppet Repubblica Sociale Italiana (Italian Social Republic) --> being operated by them and the forces of the puppet Repubblica Sociale Italiana (Italian Social Republic) for the rest of the war
• Link Italian partisans
• Was Batteria Punta S. Martino damaged by the Germans in an attempt to destroy it?
  • Presumably, but not specified.
• four turned into needs a were - they didn't magically turn into railway guns
  • You mean there wasn't a fairy godmother involved?
• The gun plus its mount this sentence could be reworded as "The gun weighed...with its mount"
• Link Eleventh Battle of the Isonzo
  • Linked in the Faa di Bruno paragraph
• Mention that Faa di Bruno was reactivated for WWII
• Sources are RS and consistently formatted, External links appropriate Kges1901 (talk) 20:54, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Could you tell I really wanted to get done with this one? See my changes are acceptable and thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:18, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

• Passing - All comments addressed. Kges1901 (talk) 15:21, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed