Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Andrea Doria-class battleship/archive1

Andrea Doria-class battleship

 * 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 GrahamColm 16:49, 13 July 2014.


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

This is a joint effort between Parsecboy and I - these two ships had relatively uneventful careers for vessels that were in service for both world wars. They spent WWI in port but did see some action during WWII, including the raid on Taranto in 1940, where Caio Duilio was torpedoed. Both ships survived the war and were permitted to remain in Italian hands - they continued to soldier on, alternating as the fleet flagship until the early 1950s, when they were finally decommissioned after nearly four decades in service. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments
 * I just noticed this on FACL ... it's not at FAC yet is it? - Dank (push to talk) 01:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Forgot to copy the nom to the FAC page.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:22, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I copyedited the article per my copyediting disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:52, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done
 * Some details (like displacement) differ between infobox and article text
 * Be consistent in whether page ranges are abbreviated or not
 * "Further reference" should be "Further reading"
 * Conway Maritime Press or just Conway? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:08, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Both, different iterations of the company name. Thanks for catching these.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments, leaning support (and hope to be more prompt than the last one, sorry.
 * Lede
 * "incidents, including the Corfu incident" Can we avoid the repetition?
 * Been trying to think about alternatives, but fracas, affair, etc. all have the wrong connotations. Suggestions welcomed.
 * FWIW I had the same thought as Wehwalt when I copyedited/reviewed at MilHist ACR, but came to the same conclusion as Sturm here, so I left it. I am planning to recuse from coord duties and revisit as a reviewer here, perhaps something will come to one of us yet... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You say in the lede they were withdrawn from service. The body says they were placed in reserve.  Is this the same thing? You also are more specific about the year (1933) than you are in the body.
 * Propulsion
 * "12 of which burned both oil and coal." To quote from Johnny Dangerously, "one at a time or both together"?
 * Armament
 * "claims" I would not use this word unless I had very serious doubts about what is being stated. I think it says to the reader not to take seriously what follows.
 * "a bit" a bit informal. Perhaps "somewhat"?
 * " a total of" Unless I'm missing something, this can be safely cut
 * There are a number of places where words are repeated ("guns" "armor" "strake") in close proximity. I realize we are dealing with things that don't synonymize well, but do what you can.  Not really an action item, because I lack the technical knowledge to know which ones can and which ones can't. More a suggestion.
 * Modifications etc.
 * "All of the changes made during their reconstruction" "All of" can be cut, I think.
 * Service history
 * "assisted in the suppression of Gabriele D'Annunzio" suppression reads oddly as applied to a person


 * That's about it. Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:44, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that I've cleared up the rest of these. See how well they read for you now. Thanks for your review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Support on prose and comprehensiveness. The only things remaining are matters of editorial discretion, which I respect.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:49, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Cambalachero
First, the image review. File:Battleship Andrea Doria.png seems fine, but it should be moved to Commons (unless someone wants to retain a copy here for some reason). PD-US-1923-abroad is for works which are free in the US but not in the source country; which is not the case here. File:Andrea Doria class battleship diagrams Brasseys 1923.jpg seems fine. As for File:Italian battleship Andrea Doria.jpg, is the Imperial War Museum part of the United Kingdom government? File:Italian battleship Andrea Doria gunnery training.png has no author or date. File:Duilio 1948.jpg has text in Italian, which should be translated to English. It requires as well a license for its status in the US. I will make the article review later. Cambalachero (talk) 17:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Re: File:Italian battleship Andrea Doria.jpg - Yes, the IWM is a national museum.
 * Re: File:Italian battleship Andrea Doria gunnery training.png - Added the year (it was in the citation, just not copied down when the description box was added) and no author is credited in the original publication.
 * Re: File:Duilio 1948.jpg - Added PD-URAA. The Italian text is just an explanation of Italian copyright law and is unnecessary - I've removed it. Parsecboy (talk) 17:38, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * All files seem right now. The ones that are free at both the home country and the US should be moved to Commons, but that can be done anytime and has no importance for this FAC. Cambalachero (talk) 13:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

You should clarify the nationality of Guiseppe Valsecchi, to clarify the context. An article on him may be useful; but the link to vice admiral (just a rank) is a bit of overlinking. "General characteristics" and "Propulsion" are section of a single paragraph, they should be either expanded or upmerged. Sometimes you use unit acronyms, and others full word units. Sources disagree on gun's performance, but you mentioned Giorgio Giorgerini in the body and Friedman is hidden inside a ref note.
 * Design
 * I think that readers will reasonably understand that Valsecchi was Italian absent any mention an international design competition. I have clarified that he was a naval architect. The four subsections of a general design and description section are a pretty standard format for ship FAs even though the general characteristics and propulsion sections are usually only a single para long. Generally we spell out a measurement on first usage and may or may not abbreviate it subsequently, usually depending on length. Giorgerini is privileged because he provides a single figure while Friedman gives a range of numbers. I suspect that he's quoting data from different models of shells used by the guns over time, but cannot be certain.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:14, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Has this layout standard been discussed before? Can you name other articles that follow it? As for Friedman and Giorgerini, remember that we are not truth finders. If there is a dispute, then you must describe the dispute (that Friedman gives a certain figure and Giorgerini talks about a range), not give more prominence to one of the sides. Segregation of other points of view into less visible sections of the article layout is discouraged at WP:STRUCTURE.
 * Here are some of my FAs that use this structure: Japanese battleship Nagato, Japanese aircraft carrier Sōryū, Russian battleship Retvizan, and Conte di Cavour-class battleship. Giorgerini provides shell weight, muzzle velocity and range, while Friedman gives a range of weights and velocities, without any range figures. Since this last is arguably the most important I went with it. I think that providing Friedman's alternate data is acceptably handled in a note so that readers can see the differences if they care.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

"Warhead" is a not a specialized technical word, it's not needed to link it.
 * Modifications and reconstruction
 * I disagree with you here; the word's almost exclusively used in relation to weapons of one sort or another, in my experience.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:14, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good reason, I will drop my concern. Cambalachero (talk) 13:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

You may consider adding a link to Military history of Italy during World War I and Military history of Italy during World War II, or just World War I and World War II. "too effectively" is unneeded, just "effectively" would be enough. Change "decided to implement" to "implemented". Cambalachero (talk) 13:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Service history
 * WWI and WWII are linked in the lede. Concur with your assessment on "too effectively"; disagree with your next point. We describing di Revel's thought process on how to deal with the A-H naval threat; if the point were more isolated and only dealt with Italian naval strategy your phrasing would be correct. Thanks for looking this over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:14, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The lead is supposed to be a summary of the whole article, so repeating internal links is not a problem. It is correct that you shouldn't link to a same article several times, but doing it in the lead and in the body is not a problem. The point with "decided to implement" is that it is a bit wordy; we are not describing his thought processes but his actions, and the context provided already does a good job in clarifying why did he do that. Cambalachero (talk) 13:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree, the two sentences prior to the one under discussion discuss Di Revel's analysis of the tactical situation and decision not to directly attack the A-H fleet. And this sentence flows directly from the others. I would, however, welcome comments from any other editors.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If the article was longer I don't mind linking in the lede and the main body, but it seems insulting to readers to do so in a 15K article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Support -- Recusing myself from delegate/coordinator duties, when this was at MilHist ACR I copyedited and reviewed structure, detail, images and sources before supporting. Looking over changes since then, I just had one tweak to make to the prose and am happy to support here as well. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:28, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Support Haven't checked image status or sources but I support on all other criteria except comprehensiveness, which I'm not qualified to judge. Comments. I'll add notes here as I go through the article. I've completed the review; the article is in great shape and I expect to be able to support once the minor points below are addressed. -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:13, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "Both ships were scrapped after 1956": I assume this is phrased this way because the sources give no details on the date they were scrapped, but it reads oddly. How about using the same phrasing as in the body of the article, which makes it clearer what happened: "Both ships stricken from the naval register in September 1956 and were subsequently broken up for scrap"?
 * I now see the scrap dates in the body of the article -- 1957 and 1961. I'd suggest just giving those dates in the lead, to avoid the odd phrasing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:43, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the phrase reads oddly. Remember that the lede is supposed to summarize the main body and that phrase provides the general info as to the fate of the ships while the main body provides the more exact details.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:24, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "By that time, Italy had entered World War II": I'd suggest adding "on the side of the Axis"; you specify Italy's side in WW I just a few lines above, and I think the same should be done here.
 * Good idea.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:24, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Did anyone of note serve on either ship? I don't know if it's usual in ship articles to mention who the commanding officers were, but I wondered about that too.
 * I have no idea if anyone of note served aboard; Italian naval officers are very poorly covered in English-language sources.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:24, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Why are "Shafts" and "Geared" written with the initial upper case in the "General characteristics" section of the infobox?
 * Fixed. Thanks for your comments.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:24, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Switched to support above; the "both ships were scrapped after 1956" point is just personal preference on my part. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:54, 22 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.