Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Francesco Caracciolo-class battleship/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 29 February 2020 [1].

Francesco Caracciolo-class battleship[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:32, 31 December 2019 (UTC) and Parsecboy (talk)[reply]

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. The article passed a MilHist A-class review a few weeks ago and we believe that it meets the FAC criteria. As usual we'd like reviewers to look for any unexplained or unlinked jargon and infelicitous prose.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:32, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]

  • Link knots in the body.
    • Done
  • Pipe Italy to the Kingdom of Italy.
    • Done
  • He originally called for a ship armed with twelve 381-millimeter guns Change "he" with "Ferrati" why because the sentences after this also use "he" which would make it 3 hes next to each other. IMO genders, names and the word "it" should be balanced in a paragraph. Of course if someone disagrees I'm happy to listen.
    • Works for me
  • They had a beam of 29.6 m (97 ft) and a draft of 9.5 m (31 ft) --> "The ships had a beam of 29.6 m (97 ft) and a draft of 9.5 m (31 ft)" Same reason as above.
    • Done
  • Metric tons vs tonnes.
    • Fixed

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks CPA. Parsecboy (talk) 13:36, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CPA-5: - anything left to address? Parsecboy (talk) 16:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks fine to me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:59, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN11: the References entry for this book lists only one author, while there are two here - which is correct?
  • FN12: References entry has authors in a different order
    • Fixed
  • Clerici and Ordovini are the same periodical but are formatted differently
    • I'm not seeing the difference
  • For consistency with Cernuschi, Sandler should also include state
    • I've removed them all instead - I don't see much of a use to including states and countries here
  • Be consistent in whether you include subtitles - you have it for Goldstein but not Friedman
    • Added
  • Romanych: both Worldcat and GBooks list a different publisher for that ISBN. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Fowler&fowler[edit]

I'm beginning a review here, putting down some quick thoughts:

  • "(sentence) "The Francesco Caracciolo-class battleships were a group of four battleships designed for the Royal Italian Navy (Regia Marina) in 1913 and ordered in 1914
    • Isn't the page about the class? I'm a little confused here. Tiger, for example, is about the species—it doesn't begin with "Tigers are a group of 8,000 animals ... " I'm curious, not saying it is incorrect.
      • Well, that isn't exactly apples to apples - one would expect the definition of a small set of items to include their number, but not so in a very large set. The Sullivan brothers comes to mind - the obvious first question that comes to mind is how many of them were involved in the event that made them notable.
  • ... ordered in 1914; the first ship of the class, Francesco Caracciolo, was laid down that year. The other three ships, Cristoforo Colombo, Marcantonio Colonna, and Francesco Morosini were all laid down in 1915.
    • semi-colons are used to separate independent clauses if they are felt (semantically or structurally) closer to each other than to sentences to either side of them.
    • Should the separation be: "... ordered in 1914. The first ship of the class, Francesco Caracciolo, was laid down that year; the other three ships, Cristoforo Colombo, Marcantonio Colonna, and Francesco Morosini were all laid down in 1915."
      • Works for me.
  • (sentence) Armed with a main battery of eight 381 mm (15 in) guns and possessing a top speed of 28 knots (52 km/h; 32 mph), the four ships of the class were intended to be the equivalent of the British Queen Elizabeth class.
    • Would "intended to be the equivalent of those in the British Queen Elizabeth class" be better?
      • Hmm, that's a good question - your suggestion would be slightly more parallel, but it's also a bit wordier, and the general rule of thumb I try to follow is, the tighter the prose, the better - let me ping @Dank: and see what his thoughts are.

PS, on second thoughts:

    • "The" keel was laid," I imagine, is the more common, the more encyclopedic, and the more easily understood expression. (vs. (the ship) "was laid down."
      • IMO they're equivalent (and actually, a quick google of "keel was laid" vs. ship+"was laid down" shows the latter is significantly more common. Granted, those are quick and dirty searches.
    • Would it be better to write: The keel of the first ship, Francesco Caracciolo, was laid later the same year, and those of the other three, Cristoforo Colombo, Marcantonio Colonna, and Francesco Morosini the following year." No semi-colons are needed now.
      • How about just trimming "were all laid down" to simply "followed"?
    • When were the ships launched? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:57, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I forgot about this review. Will return very soon. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:56, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Fowler&fowler:--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:07, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Fowler&fowler:, I expect this review will be closing fairly soon. Ian Rose (talk) 09:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sturmvogel 66 and Ian Rose: I apologize for being so tardy. I have now read, and reread, the article. I don't know too much about this topic, and I can't speak to issues such as sourcing, but the text reads very well. I am happy to support the article. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:29, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk[edit]

  • Will review soon. FunkMonk (talk) 11:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cannone da is duplinked.
    • Fixed
  • You don't state who it was named for or link him. I know that a specific ship was named for him, but since the class was too, and the ship doesn't have its own article, it should be stated here as well.
It would appear to be Francesco Caracciolo. Anyhow, once this is addressed, I should be ready to support. FunkMonk (talk) 21:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Right, it's obvious who each of the four ships were named after, but there are differing opinions about WP:BLUE, so I generally only add namesakes if I have a source that explicitly addresses it. Parsecboy (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have a source that identifies the namesakes for three of the four. Where's the best place to link them? A new column in the table?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Either that or when the ships are first mentioned each in the article body? FunkMonk (talk) 13:39, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd missed the entry for the fourth ship, so all of them are now cited.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:53, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The intro is a bit dense, maybe break into two paragraphs?
    • Done
  • "Chief of Staff of the Regia Marina (Royal Navy)" State the Italian.
    • The Italian version of the title? I don't know what that'd be, so I'll again defer to Sturmvogel
Oh, I meant say "Italian Royal Navy", as you say in the intro. FunkMonk (talk) 21:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, got it. Parsecboy (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "381-millimeter guns and twenty 152-millimeter (6 in)" Why no conversion for the first number?
    • It's already converted earlier
  • "manufactured by Terni" In Terni?
    • Terni was an armor manufacturer, coincidentally located in the city - I'll remove the link to avoid confusion
  • The photo under Construction has an ugly watermark.
    • I found a better version of the image
  • "note incorrect aspects such as the single mast and ram bow" Do we know why the drawing is incorrect?
    • The drawing was prepared by someone in the American Society of Naval Engineers, so they wouldn't have had access to the plans and they were likely guessing based on the announced specifications. Or it might represent an earlier version of the design. These sorts of things are common, see for example the drawings in here
  • "and ordered in 1914" Should also be stated in the article body.
    • Added
  • "were intended to be the equivalent of the British Queen Elizabeth class" The article body is less specific.
  • Support - the names were a nice last touch, looks good to me. FunkMonk (talk) 16:06, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass[edit]

All images are appropriately licenced, positioned and captioned. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:59, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by L293D[edit]

These are really just nitpicks, but:

  • Do we have the range of the secondary 6 inch guns?
    • No, unfortunately - though in checking Friedman, he lists them as 50-caliber versions, not the 45s carried by the Andrea Dorias - @Sturmvogel 66:, can you check Ordovini to see if they do have the 45-cal. gun?
      • Well, this is annoying. They specifically state 45-caliber guns, but the shell weight, charge weight and muzzle velocity is a better match for the 50-caliber gun listed by Friedman. Neither source provides a range for the 50-caliber weapon, though. Since Friedman specifically attributes the 50-caliber gun to these ships, I'm going to go with that and presume that Ordovini made a typo.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we have the range of the torps?
    • No, in part because it doesn't seem that the Italians settled on a version for the ships. Friedman has data on Italian torpedoes, but without knowing the size (and specific model), there's no way to include specifics.
  • Do we know if the ship would have had torpedo bulges?
    • Nothing I've seen, no. But it's not likely; bulges were first used in Britain during World War I.
  • I'm all for more line drawings, but the right-elevation drawing in the infobox really contradicts the line drawing in the body. In the top image, the turrets are far apart, whereas in the lower image, the cannon barrels from the superfiring turrets overhang over the lower turrets. If one of the ships was launched, surely the had already decided where the circular gun barbettes would be. L293D (☎ • ✎) 04:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The infobox image is correct - and the caption for the other one notes that it incorporates incorrect aspects. This is fairly common with speculative drawings of ships that haven't been built yet, which is why I think it's useful to keep. Parsecboy (talk) 16:54, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looks good. Supporting. L293D (☎ • ✎) 03:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Francesco_Caracciolo-class_battleship/archive1&oldid=943447531"