Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Conte di Cavour-class battleship/archive1


 * 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 User:Ian Rose 10:04, 15 June 2013 (UTC).

Conte di Cavour-class battleship

 * Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

These battleships had a curious history. Virtually inactive during World War I, one ship was sunk by a magazine explosion in harbor (cause unknown) and the other two were given the most extensive reconstructions done on a battleship by any nation between the wars. One was crippled by the British attack at Taranto and under repair for the rest of World War II. The other was lightly damaged by the longest-range hit ever made at the Battle of Calabria and was later transferred to the Soviet Union as war reparations. She was sunk in 1955 by long-buried German mines in Sevastopol harbor. The article has a MilHist A-class review last month and I've tweaked it a little in preparation for this nomination.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Should "The armor protecting the barbettes was reinforced 50-millimeter (2.0 in) plates" be "The armor protecting the barbettes was reinforced with 50-millimeter (2.0 in) plates". Otherwise the new Barbette armour is thinner than the old.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  10:12, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Good catch. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:11, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done
 * Check alphabetization of References
 * Gray or Gardiner & Gray?
 * 277–77?
 * FN37: formatting. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * All fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:11, 18 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Comments Support Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Damn, that's a really low-quality lead image (no offense to you, of course; book/magazine scans can only be so good). It may be worth it to email someone in the Italian Wikimedia chapter to see if they can poke the Italian Navy into releasing an image or two. That's what they are (nominally) there for, anyway. Let me know if you'd want help; I can ask around to see who would be the best person to contact.
 * I've talked with my friend... they say that it:Utente:Pigr8 would be the best to talk to. He isn't part of the chapter but is very active in ships and photos on the site, and may be able to get them for you or point you in the right direction. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:41, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I found some more images.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks good -- still, keep that name in mind. Never know! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Have you noticed the work being done on the Italian Wikipedia's Classe Conte di Cavour? It looks like they use some references you don't, so if he/she speaks English, that could also be a helpful source.
 * I've got the book that is the primary reference there, but I don't want to have to go to Google to translate it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, but both it:Utente:Demostene119 and it:Utente:Gaetano56 can communicate in English, so you could ask them if you're missing anything. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I've contacted both of them to see if I've missed anything by not using Bargoni.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:49, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * They've added some extra material.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Awesome, nice work. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * – isn't that a bit of a technicality? Dante Alighieri could be considered a one-ship class.
 * Yeah, pointless technicality.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * – run-on sentence and it's of unclear relevance until you get to the next sentence.
 * Rephrased.
 * – fire, fire, opened fire, fire fire fire :-)
 * Extensively reworked.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * – this may be just my curiosity speaking, but where was the Caesare going in 1944, as it was after the Italian surrender? Egypt?
 * Dunno, probably just training there, or possibly sailing between Malta and Taranto.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This isn't quite up to your normal prose quality. It may be worth asking a copyeditor to look over it (e.g. John?) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 11:10, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll see if I can get Dank to look it over. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I don't have time any more to do the first pass. (I know it would be the first pass, because for instance "Italy lacked the ability to build larger guns," is missing a period at the end of the sentence.) After someone has done a prose review, I'll hop in with some comments. - Dank (push to talk) 14:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You mean that all punctuation isn't equivalent? :-) --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:37, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I'm still committed to helping out at FAC ... as long as I'm the second copyeditor, to free up some time so I can write some copyediting software. Surely there's someone willing to pitch in here and help, Sturm, you've done so much for so many. - Dank (push to talk) 19:09, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Question Per this, shouldn't the article be in British English? --John (talk) 11:30, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't follow, John. - Dank (push to talk) 14:17, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think he's thinking of MOS:RETAIN, but I also think that'd be making a mountain out of a molehill... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:43, 26 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Another question: is "quadripod" the best word to describe a four-legged mast? --John (talk) 16:32, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks like it should be either quadropod or tetrapod as quadruped means four-footed. Tetrapod is much more common because it's used for the biological classification of four-limbed animals. So do we prefer Greek or Latin?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Tetrapodal it is.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments - Dank (push to talk)
 * "Conte di Cavour-class battleships": Why all italics?
 * "off line": off-line
 * "The torpedo exploded": Should this be "The torpedoes exploded", or maybe "A torpedo exploded"?
 * "Regia Marina": Be consistent in italizing.
 * Support on prose per new standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 23:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * All done. Many thanks for looking this over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Support Dana boomer (talk) 11:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC) Comments A few issues, mostly minor, I think. Dana boomer (talk) 00:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Design and description - Conversions should be standardized to either inch (mm) or mm (inch). In general, conversions need to be standardized to have either standard or metric first - in the armament section yards are first, but in the armor section meters are first.
 * Done.
 * Not done. I still see several yards/feet/inches as the primary units, although the majority of the article uses mm/m first. Dana boomer (talk) 01:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Design and description, "The ships took four to five years to build, leaving them inferior in protection and armament to their contemporaries in most foreign navies" - What does the length of building time have to do with their inferiority?
 * Giorgerini actually says: "The ships were not, therefore, completed until 1914–15 so, when the class was commissioned, other navies had dreadnoughts of the same age, but more heavily armed, better protected, and, in some cases, faster."
 * Could we clarify this in the text? Dana boomer (talk) 01:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing what the issue is here; the sentence from the article seems a fair summary of the source. What's missing? I'm happy to take suggestions.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe something along the lines of "Taking advantage of the length of time that it took to build and commission the ships, other countries were able to build dreadnoughts that were superior in protection and armament." I'm not wedded to that wording, but I'm basically looking for a direct textual link between the build time and the inferiority. At the moment, the sentence reads more like two unconnected pieces of information jammed together with a comma. Dana boomer (talk) 11:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, tweaked it a little, but rephrased. Thanks for your suggestion.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Design and description, "Construction was delayed by late deliveries of the 305-millimeter guns, armor plates and labor shortages." I don't think that construction was delayed by late deliveries of labor shortages, which is how this currently reads.
 * Rephrased.
 * Design and description - what is Terni cemented? An alternate name for Krupp armor, or the Italian's name for their process?
 * Their version of Krupp armor, as is noted immediately before the term.
 * Could we clarify this? Maybe "their equivalent of Krupp armor, called Terni cemented,"? Dana boomer (talk) 01:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Propulsion, "10 kn (19 km/h; 12 mph)" Why the sudden abbreviation for knots?
 * Fixed.
 * Forecastle should be linked on first occurrence, rather than later on as it currently is.
 * Fixed
 * Modifications - What does "license-built" mean?
 * Linked
 * Service, "The explosion blew a hole clean through the ship," "clean through" is a bit...unencyclopedic? Maybe "completely through"?
 * Agreed. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Replies above. Dana boomer (talk) 01:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Replies above. I have changed to support, as the last remaining issue is not significant enough to withhold featured status. Dana boomer (talk) 11:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Delegate cmt -- image review, anyone? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Image check all OK (PD). Sources provided. Author information provided, where possible.
 * For images without author information the images are old enough to claim PD or the PD-claim is based on other factors. OK. GermanJoe (talk) 14:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Tks Joe. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:28, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 01:09, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.