Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of protected cruisers of Italy/archive1


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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 19:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC).

List of protected cruisers of Italy

 * Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 14:23, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

This is a list that caps this project, which documents the twenty protected cruisers built for Italy in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Many of these ships saw action during the Italo-Turkish War of 1912, and some were active during World War I. I finished writing the list over a year ago, and it passed a MILHIST A-class review at the beginning of the year. I finally have time to take on an FL review, so here we are. Thanks to all who take the time to review the list. Parsecboy (talk) 14:23, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Iazyges

 * "along with the subsequent Etna class, for which Giovanni Bausan provided the basis—represented the Regia Marina's brief experimentation with the Jeune École doctrine." You may want to define the Jeune École doctrine here; a footnote could be used if you think it would be hard to fit into the paragraph.
 * It's explained in the lead, and the sentences before that touch on it again.
 * " She participated in the conquest of Eritrea in 1887–1888 as the flagship of the Italian squadron during the campaign" What squadron was this?
 * Don't know if it had a specific name.
 * "where she sank or destroyed seven Ottoman gunboats, destroying Ottoman naval strength in the area." What definition are we using for "naval strength" here? Were those 7 gunboats all the ships in the area? Most of them? Or did it just force the Ottoman ships that remained to pull back or not operate?
 * That was more or less all they had in the Red Sea - the only major Ottoman unit in the area was the cruiser OTTOMAN CRUISER Peyk-i Şevket, but she had been interned in Suez.
 * "During World War I, she was assigned to the Second Fleet, based in Brindisi, but she did not see action." Is it known why this is?
 * She was 20 years old by that point, and the fact that both sides adopted the fleet in being strategy didn't help either.
 * That is all of my comments. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  13:56, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Iazyges. Parsecboy (talk) 13:28, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * All my questions have been answered, so Support. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  15:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

referencing
In §References, all sources are listed using cs1 templates. Except for four of them. Why is that? Shouldn't they all be one style?

On a whim, I clicked the oclc link from the first one:
 * Annual Report of the Navy Department. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. 1902. OCLC 2480810.

That link sends the reader to the associated WorldCat page where one finds a link to a google preview. The citation says 1902; WorldCat doesn't state a year; google preview shows a preview of the Report from 1921. Perhaps a better citation might be:

I have not looked at the others that depend on WorldCat oclc identifiers but if this one is suspect, the perhaps others are as well.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The cite journal template doesn't allow you to omit an article title, without generating an error (see for instance here), so I just produced the correct formatting manually. Parsecboy (talk) 12:13, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I moved your post out of my post (it was a single post, not a series of separately signed posts).
 * has a specific meaning in cs1. From its documentation page (first sentence): "This Citation Style 1 template is used to create citations for academic and scientific papers and journals."  Annual Reports of the Navy Department is none of those.  Rather, it is a report, or in this case, given its length, a book.  As an 'annual' it is a 'periodical' because a new issue is/was published yearly but this does not make it a scientific or academic journal.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:46, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, though it's general practice to reply to points directly below them (see the section above, for instance). In any event, the Annual Reports are closer to a journal than a book (Worldcat, for example, classifies it as a ""Journal / Magazine / Newspaper"), and I don't know that cite book is appropriate for them. And certainly not for the Journal of the RUSI or Appleton's. Parsecboy (talk) 12:26, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I have written elsewhere that WorldCat is not a well curated site; it depends on individual librarians across the world to add stuff to it so, in a sense, WorldCat is as well curated as Wikipedia. I would suggest that the journal / magazine / newspaper classification at WorldCat for Annual Reports ... is a result of that low quality curation.  The real benefit of WorldCat is the ability it provides readers to locate a physical copy of the source item – but only if we can provide an accurate oclc identifier.  Beyond that, the WorldCat metadata are suspect.  If we cannot exactly identify the source's ture oclc, and the evidence shows that in these cases we cannot, then we should not be including an oclc to represent the 'journal'; which, for Annual Reports.. is a designation I dispute.  I If in a citation at en.wiki we include an oclc that isn't specific, we have not aided the reader's search for the source we used so we should not be providing an oclc or any other identifier that doesn't specifically match the source.
 * Journal of the Royal United Service Institution is certainly a journal so I would cite it:
 * Appletons' Annual Cyclopaedia... is an encyclopedia supplement so:
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:49, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The Worldcat link isn't for a specific volume, it's for the journal. As far as I'm aware, the expectation at FAC/FLC is that a reference should have one of the standardized identification numbers (whether that's an ISBN, an ISSN, an OCLC, etc). Parsecboy (talk) 12:13, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Is that documented anywhere? There are a lot of Annual Reports of the Navy Department – emphasis on 'Annual' – see this list.  If an oclc identifier is  and so is provided in the citation, it should, in my opinion, be an identifier for the specific source stated in the rest of the citation; in this example case, that oclc number is .  Providing an oclc that misidentifies the source fails to live up to the 'our best work' rubric.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:46, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Is what documented anywhere? The expectation OCLCs/ISBNs/etc. at FLC/FAC? Not that I'm aware of, but I've done 60+ of these, and that's the experience I've had. As for Worldcat, when you look at the entry for the Journal of the RUSI, you don't get OCLCs for individual editions, you just get the journal. Same with Appleton's. The OCLC for the Annual Report is to the generic Worldcat page, not to a specific edition. I have no idea how you got the preview link for the 1902 edition (I can't find it by simply searching for the title, even copying the title from that OCLC number), or why that's a separate OCLC number, but Worldcat is a fairly screwy site. Parsecboy (talk) 12:26, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the expectation. It seems to me that if editors haven't seen fit to codify such an explicit requirement then the requirement doesn't exist.  ...but Worldcat is a fairly screwy site.  My point exactly; and sufficient reason in my view to only include identifiers that aid readers in locating a copy of our sources.
 * For find the 'Find in a library' link in the left panel at the Annual Reports url.  Even though that particular oclc does link to a google books facsimile, WorldCat being what it is, I would not include an oclc in this source's citation.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:49, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Is that documented anywhere? There are a lot of Annual Reports of the Navy Department – emphasis on 'Annual' – see this list.  If an oclc identifier is  and so is provided in the citation, it should, in my opinion, be an identifier for the specific source stated in the rest of the citation; in this example case, that oclc number is .  Providing an oclc that misidentifies the source fails to live up to the 'our best work' rubric.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:46, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Is what documented anywhere? The expectation OCLCs/ISBNs/etc. at FLC/FAC? Not that I'm aware of, but I've done 60+ of these, and that's the experience I've had. As for Worldcat, when you look at the entry for the Journal of the RUSI, you don't get OCLCs for individual editions, you just get the journal. Same with Appleton's. The OCLC for the Annual Report is to the generic Worldcat page, not to a specific edition. I have no idea how you got the preview link for the 1902 edition (I can't find it by simply searching for the title, even copying the title from that OCLC number), or why that's a separate OCLC number, but Worldcat is a fairly screwy site. Parsecboy (talk) 12:26, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the expectation. It seems to me that if editors haven't seen fit to codify such an explicit requirement then the requirement doesn't exist.  ...but Worldcat is a fairly screwy site.  My point exactly; and sufficient reason in my view to only include identifiers that aid readers in locating a copy of our sources.
 * For find the 'Find in a library' link in the left panel at the Annual Reports url.  Even though that particular oclc does link to a google books facsimile, WorldCat being what it is, I would not include an oclc in this source's citation.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:49, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:49, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Navy and Army Illustrated is listed in §References but not referred to from §Notes. Also, Cernuschi & O'Hara are listed in §Notes but do not have a matching citation in §References.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:16, 20 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Have replaced the references with the versions you put above, and added Cernuschi & O'Hara - good catch. This is the footnote for Navy and Army Illustrated. Parsecboy (talk) 20:49, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 22:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Replaced (and I've gone through and copied those refs over to the individual articles as well). Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 10:36, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 22:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Replaced (and I've gone through and copied those refs over to the individual articles as well). Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 10:36, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Because specific page numbers belong in §Notes:
 * Annual Reports... url should change to: url and 4 should be removed
 * Huntington url should change to: https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/58253#page/96/mode/2up
 * RUSI url should change to: url and 624 should change to 623–625
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 10:48, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * All fixed, thanks Trappist. Parsecboy (talk) 12:00, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Because specific page numbers belong in §Notes:
 * Annual Reports... url should change to: url and 4 should be removed
 * Huntington url should change to: https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/58253#page/96/mode/2up
 * RUSI url should change to: url and 624 should change to 623–625
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 10:48, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * All fixed, thanks Trappist. Parsecboy (talk) 12:00, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Huntington url should change to: https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/58253#page/96/mode/2up
 * RUSI url should change to: url and 624 should change to 623–625
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 10:48, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * All fixed, thanks Trappist. Parsecboy (talk) 12:00, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

 Comments Support –
 * Giovanni Bausan: Should the last mention of the ship's name in this section be italicized?
 * Campania class: "The last pair of protected cruisers built by the Italian Navy was intended for colonial service, and were based on experience from Calabria." In describing the pair of cruisers, we have "was" and "were" in this sentence, which mixes tenses. I would use "were" for both, but in any case they should be made consistent. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 03:31, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Good catches on both, thanks Giants. Parsecboy (talk) 16:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments

 * Link scrap/scrapped, zinc
 * Both done.
 * Nicely done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:16, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Sturm. Parsecboy (talk) 12:43, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Supporting now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:58, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


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