Template:Did you know nominations/Italian cruisers

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Allen3 talk 00:49, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Insufficient progress toward resolving outstanding issues

DYK toolbox

Regioni-class cruiser, Italian cruiser Umbria, Italian cruiser Lombardia, Italian cruiser Etruria, Italian cruiser Liguria, Italian cruiser Elba, Italian cruiser Puglia[edit]

( Back to T:TDYK )
( Article history links:
)

Italian cruiser Etruria

  • Reviewed: Not a self-nomination

New or improved to Good Article status by Parsecboy (talk). Nominated by Oceanh (talk) at 18:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC).

  • Just to note, only the first four are GAs - I finished writing Elba only this morning and Puglia still has some work to be done. Parsecboy (talk) 18:28, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • And another thing - "Regioni" shouldn't be italicized since the class name refers to the category of names rather than the name of the lead ship (see here). Parsecboy (talk) 20:45, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Removed italics from "Regioni". Thanks for pointing that out. Oceanh (talk) 23:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Update: All six articles are GAs now. Parsecboy (talk) 12:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
'Nother update: Regioni-class cruiser has been promoted to GA as well, so it might as well be included in the DYK. Parsecboy (talk) 15:03, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
I also added Regioni-class cruiser to the nomination. Congratulations with seven Good Articles! The articles may need to be checked for immediate inline citation after the hook fact(s). Oceanh (talk) 08:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the review. I agree with your note about sourcing. To me it appears that the hook fact is taken from Gardiner 1979. Because I do not have this book, assistance is needed from the creator of the articles (@Parsecboy:) to verify the source, and if possible modify the articles and include inline citations for this particular fact. Oceanh (talk) 23:08, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
@Parsecboy and Oceanh: It's been more than three weeks since the last review. Any progress on those sources? Fuebaey (talk) 11:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
I have tried to contact the creator of these articles. Will see if they are available and can contribute with the sources. Oceanh (talk) 13:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Gardiner actually calls them Umbria-class cruisers, for the first ship laid down (they're also sometimes called the Lombardia class, for the first ship completed - see for instance here). I used the current title because that's what the Italians call the class, and I figured they would know the official name best. It can be seen in English sources here, for example. Parsecboy (talk) 13:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Could you clarify the implications for the proposed hook. Are you scrapping the hook or the nom? Do you expect me to let the hook slide? Do you intend to restructure the articles consistently?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
@Parsecboy and Oceanh: We're nearing the two month mark here. Could you please watch this nomination and respond to Tony's concerns if you still intend to work on this. Fuebaey (talk) 17:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for providing further information about the class. Somewhat disappointing that Gardiner can not be used to support the original hook. I thought this was a practical way to join all articles into one single hook. Maybe the hook should rather be split into separate hooks for each ship (where an interesting fact is found). Here is a suggestion for Lombardia.
  • ... that in 1896, the Italian cruiser Lombardia was struck by an epidemic outbreak of yellow fever, which resulted in the death of 134 men from the ship's crew?
(This fact is taken from three consecutive related sentences, and there is an inline citation after the third sentence.) Oceanh (talk) 23:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
@TonyTheTiger: Do you feel like continuing this review or should I call for another reviewer? Fuebaey (talk) 23:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I am extremely shocked that only one of the articles is now being proposed. I was waiting for other hooks. Oceanh are you now only going for one article?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Oceanh, I am willing to pass that article now, but if this discussion closes without any other nominations, the other six are effectively failed forever. They have all both been created and promoted to GA so there is no possible future main page date at DYK if no other nominations are forthcoming.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:34, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
The single article dyk was (is) sort of an emergency alternative (better one than none). I thought it would be great to have all seven GAs featured in a single hook. Trying again:
  • This 15:23, 5 November 2014 (UTC) comment remains valid: "Two of the 6 ship articles have the word Regioni in 5 places (WP:LEAD, WP:INFOBOX, {{main}}, {{Regioni class cruiser}} and Category:Regioni-class cruisers). 2 have it in 4 places (not the LEAD) and 2 have it in 4 places (not the Infobox). None of the 6 ship articles have any sourced content that satisfies WP:V regarding this classification. I.e., nothing says This ship is a Regioni-class ship with a WP:IC from a WP:RS. Thus, the hook is unsourced." Piping the Regioni-class cruiser article does not solve the problem.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm guessing you need a source saying all those ships belong to that class. How about this article on the Lombardia (in Italian) from the Italian Navy? At the bottom it states "Costituiva la prima unità della classe Regioni, di 7 unità, assieme alle gemelle Calabria, Elba, Etruria, Liguria, Puglia e Umbria." Running it through a translator: Was the first unit of the class Regions, 7 units, along with the twins Calabria, Elba, Etruria, Liguria, Puglia and Umbria. Fuebaey (talk) 15:39, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
I've added the ref. Apologies in advance if I've wrecked the referencing format - not particularly familiar with shortened footnotes. @TonyTheTiger: Care to finish this review? Fuebaey (talk) 14:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • In each case, you have added a lone citation to the WP:LEAD rather than the main body. However, each article has the uncited LEAD format with the LEAD summarizing facts that are cited in the main body. Please locate the citation to a fact in the main body, which is summarized in the LEAD.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Also, would you consider correcting the formatting inconsistency that I noted above so that all of the articles reference the class in the same 5 ways.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I think for the purposes of DYK, referencing a hook fact in the lead is adequate. Following the lead Manual of Style is not a requirement here. For me, it was either there or the infobox because it was the most consistant place to put it without having to write additional text. I would ask that you direct your stylistic preferences towards the original GA nominator, Parsecboy or correct it yourself (basic copyediting doesn't make you involved). In any case I don't see a valid reason for stalling this further, so if you don't feel comfortable approving this I would suggest calling for another reviewer. Fuebaey (talk) 15:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Regardless of how long this has taken, it does not mean we should just slap in WP:ICs willy nilly. There is no reason not to move the ICs down to the main body so that the LEAD is not inconsistently formatted. I have not been the greatest WP citizen since taking up Ubering with my spare time, but I don't think that is relevant here. The reviews are not judged by any clock. They are judged on their own merits. Unless there is lots of support that I am guiding this review incorrectly, I would prefer to continue to do my best if you can continue to do your best.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood the nature of my objection. I'm not advocating a rubber stamp for this. If it was factually inaccurate or otherwise severely detrimental to the main page, I'd be happy enough to correct it - provided I can. But I clearly disagree with your position for holding up this nomination. I was intially reluctant to add the citation because of the particular format and I don't believe adding what is essentially the hook to the body and moving the reference tag to be a significant improvement. Please don't take this as an affront, but since we're not going to agree I'd like to call for a second opinion. Fuebaey (talk) 20:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't mind a second opinion, but repeating information in the LEAD in the main body is not unnecessary repetition, it is required. The LEAD is suppose to be a summary of the main body. Any content that is mentioned in the lead must also be in the main body. I have been corrected on this in many reviews where I have had content in the LEAD that was not in the main body. You must put the content in the main body with at least as much detail so that the LEAD can be viewed as a summary of that content.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
TonyTheTiger, WP:LEAD is a requirement for Good Articles. It is not and never has been a requirement for DYK, which frequently runs articles that are just one section, either all lede or all body. Can you point to a specific DYK requirement that is being violated here? If the hook fact is referenced in the article by the end of the sentence in which it appears, whether that sentence is in the body or the lede, then the hook referencing requirement is met. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:33, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
You know, I take the above back. These are being nominated for DYK because they are Good Articles, so any textual additions to meet DYK requirements also have to meet GA requirements in order to still qualify as GAs. So the information can be moved to the body, or duplicated in the body, but if it's added to the intro it does need to be in the body. Sorry, Fuebaey, but we can't admit GAs for DYK and then allow the GA rules to be violated while meeting DYK rules—that defeats the purpose. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:37, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks to Fuebaey for providing reference for the ships belonging to the Regioni class (also called Lombardia class). Sorry for my slow response, I have been on a vacation for a week or so, with limited internet access. Agree with TonyTheTiger and BlueMoonset that edits to GA articles should be made in such a way that the GA criteria are preserved, so as a start I edited the article Regioni-class cruiser, moving the citation down to the Ships section. And intending similar edits to the individual ship articles. Now, noticing that the said reference lists seven ships in the Regioni class, including also Calabria, revealed inconsistency with existing articles and templates. Before I change templates and articles, since I am not an expert on the field, I would appreciate advice on how to handle this. Oceanh (talk) 01:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
OK, I have edited most of the articles according to the above discussion, but somebody (hopefully an expert) started to revert my edits as unnecessary. Oceanh (talk) 01:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Oceanh When these articles have been corrected and are considered stable, ping me.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • They weren't simply members. They comprise the entire class. Regardless of timing, Etruria should be listed first to clarify the picture's attribution. Yes, BlueMoonset is right and Tony's wrong above: if that's really all that was holding up the nomination before, it should move on. — LlywelynII 04:59, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I was talking about the part where he disagreed with you. You're right that he seems to have since recanted, though, so I'm outvoted. >\
    Any thoughts on the ALTs, apart from them falling under the same issue as above?

    [Edit:] Ok, yeah, I've changed my vote as well. Not because it's genuinely needful to have a cite on each individual page that each are members of a class that has its own well-sourced page and infobox or that we need to hold up any nomination based on the placement of a source within the article, but it does seem that there's confusion about the proper name of the class. Anything disagreeing with Jane's on a GA ship page should be well sourced. — LlywelynII 10:56, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

    [Edit:] Yep, the actual Italian defense ministry is pretty much the only source outranking Jane's on this one. Each page should link to its own ship's entry, though, not just the Lombardia over and over. I'll fix it. Gimme a minute. — LlywelynII 10:59, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Please stop messing with the articles, several of you have been introducing numerous errors and it's not at all helpful. I honestly don't care if the articles are featured on DYK or not - there are plenty of reasons I did not nominate them myself when I wrote them. Parsecboy (talk) 11:02, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • So, yeah, I tried to introduce the consensus above (although, for what it's worth, no actual errors despite Parsec's protests) and got literally put on trial for my trouble, so
    A) Any further changes to those pages to bring them in line with Tony's ideas here should be made by someone else and
    B) Honestly, between me and Oceanh, I'd say we either shelve this or do without Tony's desired changes. Parsec is quite vehement that I was right above and WP:CITELEAD doesn't impact an article's GA status; he doesn't seem particularly pleasant but is responsible for quite a few GAs and so probably knows what he's talking about here. It's odd that he dislikes the Italian Ministry of Defense page as a "primary source" but continues to list the ships as Regioni class, but no one other than me seems to have a problem with ignoring Jane's on that one. — LlywelynII 14:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The MoD site is perfectly fine to use to justify the name of the class - it's not fine to add Calabria as a member of the class. That was my objection - which you apparently were too busy to try to understand.
  • You got reported to AN3 because you repeatedly tried to insert your changes rather than discuss them on the article talk pages. I have made this clear (or so I had thought) - I'd appreciate it if you don't mischaracterize the situation and then claim that I'm attacking your good faith. The two are mutually exclusive.
  • As for the name of the class, I don't care what it's called - Regioni, Lombardia, or Umbria - I wrote the article with the current title based on existing links here and on it.wiki. If the class is called something else in English more frequently, that's perfectly fine to change. But a WP:RM should be used (and I haven't seen anyone propose that, either). Parsecboy (talk) 14:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Rather than start with this tarbaby, I linked to the process and people are more than capable of realizing who is mischaracterizing or misunderstanding whom, although (since you still continue to bring it up) I'll (again) note that I never added that the Calabria was a member. You continue to confuse me with Oceanh.
  • Given
    A) that due diligence doesn't seem to have been performed by the original creator of the page, the GA assessor, or the reviewer above with regard to establishing this fact in an English-language source and
    B) that the gold-standard English-language source on this topic seems to disagree with the fact being claimed and
    C) that the credibility and RS status of the Italian source being used has been impugned by a knowledgable editor,
    this DYK should be put on hold until someone establishes the fact in question. Someone should do some work at Google Ngrams, Scholar, &c. to establish that this is in fact the ENGLISH COMMONNAME of the class, which might or might not necessitate a RM. (Sorry, but I'm on hiatus from edits to those pages as above.) — LlywelynII 23:50, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Fuebaey had some additional concerns and thoughts that he placed here but which really belong in this discussion, concerning the timing on some of the articles, whether the citation in the lead ever mattered, &c. — LlywelynII 23:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • This nomination is over three months old, and seems to have hit an impasse: Parsecboy believes that the recent edits to address the hook are introducing errors (and deliberately chose not to self-nominate the articles in the first place), nominator Oceanh was reverted and seems to be at a standstill, and LlywelynII is also not editing the articles, and suggests that we put the nomination on hold until this can be sorted out. My feeling is that after over three months, this nomination has had its chance, and unless the actual name of the class has been reliably established and the articles edited accordingly in the next 48 hours, it should be closed. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • It has been another three days with no further action; marking for closure as unsuccessful, with regrets. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Italian_cruisers&oldid=1073369976"