Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of torpedo 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 Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 21:04:16 5 May 2019 (UTC).

List of torpedo cruisers of Italy

 * Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 20:01, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

This list covers the torpedo cruisers built for the Italian Royal Navy in the 1870s-1890s - the ships had relatively uneventful careers (largely a result of the fact that they were built during a relatively peaceful period, and they were no longer front-line ships by the time Italy fought in the Italo-Turkish War and the First World War in the 1910s). I wrote the list last year and it passed a MILHIST A-class review in July (link here if you're interested). Thanks to all who take the time to review the list. Parsecboy (talk) 20:01, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Lirim.Z
 * All pictures need a year in the text
 * I've added years where they're generally known, but all but one are approximations and the rest aren't known.
 * The lead needs references
 * No it doesn't, it's all repeated in the body, where the material is cited.
 * Other than that I don't see any problems. I don't know much about torpedo cruisers, but I think this article is written great and understable for people who don't know much.-- Lirim  |  Talk  02:55, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reviewing the list. Parsecboy (talk) 11:21, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "laid down in 1875, and was one of the first torpedo cruisers built by any navy" - source for that (it isn't mentioned anywhere in the body)...?
 * Good catch, added a line on her being one of the first torpedo cruisers to the body
 * In the Pietro Micca section, do the two refs right at the end support everything from "By the 1870s" onwards?
 * Yes
 * In the Tripoli section, do the two refs at the end of the first paragraph support everything in the entire paragraph?
 * Yes
 * In the Goito section, does the one ref at the end of the first paragraph support everything in the entire paragraph?
 * Yes
 * Did the Folgore class actually have no armour, or is the info simply not known?
 * Yes, no armor
 * In the Partenope section, does the one ref at the end of the first paragraph support everything in the entire paragraph?
 * Yes
 * In the Argodat section, my maths teachers always told me that a 0 should always be placed before the decimal point for a number below 1, so ".8" should be "0.8"
 * This may be a UK/US thing
 * Thanks Chris. Parsecboy (talk) 13:44, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The decimal point with no 0 still looks inherently wrong to me, but if it's simply another thing that's down to the ocean between us then so be it ;-) Support this nomination -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * As it turns out, this came up in another review, and per WP:DECIMAL, the leading zero is necessary. Parsecboy (talk) 12:07, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66

 * Consider linking displacement, laid down and commissioned in the first header.
 * In the table? I think the MoS discourages linking bold text - but I've added a link to keel laying in the lead (and the other two are linked in the table key
 * Huh, I've been using links in the ship tables in class articles for a couple of years now and nobody's complained, although I don't know how recently I sent one of them to FAC. Good enough for me though.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Link knot on first use, register, gunfire support
 * Is there a link for register? We have the Naval Vessel Register, but that's a USN thing, and I'm not seeing a general article in Category:Ship registration. Other two done.
 * Navy List is equivalent, I think.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Linked (and added to that category, too). Parsecboy (talk) 17:03, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * By analogy to the Queen song, shouldn't it be "flat-bottomed hull"?
 * Good point
 * Partenope class spent much of its career BritEng?
 * No, that's AmEng - it'd be BritEng to say the "class spent much of their careers"
 * I think you've got that backwards 'cause I wanna say "their" and "its" reads very strangely to me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Agordat became a gunboat without any guns?
 * They had guns, just not the 4.7-inch guns of the earlier classes - I kept the light guns out of the tables to keep things from getting too cluttered.
 * Fair enough.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Fix the missing ampersands in the bibliography--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:20, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks Sturm. Parsecboy (talk) 16:48, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support by PM
This list seems comprehensive and is in great shape. I have a few comments: That's all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:58, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * towards the end of the lead, could you add something about what type of ship replaced the torpedo cruisers in Italian service?
 * Good idea
 * is it worth listing the 4.7 in gun on Tripoli given it is mentioned on Confienza and the Partenopes?
 * Yes indeed
 * the service dates for Montebello don't match her article
 * Wonder what I was looking at
 * same for Monzambano, I think they might have been swapped somehow?
 * Must have been
 * the sources all appear reliable and of high quality and what you would expect to see for ships of this vintage, the formatting is up-to-scratch. No spotchecks done, as the nominator has a long history at FLC.
 * Thanks PM. Parsecboy (talk) 16:02, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * - have I addressed your comments satisfactorily? Parsecboy (talk) 17:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the prompt, Nate. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:09, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Comments by CPA-5

 * Is it me or are there a lot of imperial/US units who are primary units in the article? Oughtn't metric units be the primary?
 * I don't see why - was Italy on the metric system at the time? That the armor thicknesses are measured in obviously imperial units and not metric (for at least the first several designs - which is to say, a half-inch or three-quarter inch thickness is more obvious than 13 or 19mm, which seem rather arbitrary), which suggests the ships were designed with imperial units. Of course, it could be a rounding issue in the source, but then I don't know that I want to reverse convert from the rounded number without knowing what the actual figures are.
 * This book claims (p. 8) it was and started in 1861 probably due the establishment of Italy. The City of Milan even used metric as early as 1803 probably by Napoleon. So I guess yes it was. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:55, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I see - but that still leaves the question of accuracy and rounding to be addressed. I would hazard a guess that the decks weren't exactly half an inch (i.e., 12.7mm), and that Gardiner simply rounded the figures, but that raises the question of how much and in what direction did he do the rounding? Parsecboy (talk) 11:50, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Doesn't the sources say that about the accuracies of the ships? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:38, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No, and the problem is, whatever sources the author used for the ships presumably were in metric, so they'd have had to have converted them to imperial. If we then convert back to metric from the rounded conversions, we'll likely end up playing the telephone game. Parsecboy (talk) 15:49, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This is indeed a problem. But I think it's not bad to convert the units to metric. Yes I know this can be described as the telephone game but that doesn't mean we should let them like they are in imperial units. I think we can convert the units and add a note which stated that the real numbers are probably unkown and are probably rounded. That's, I think the best solution I came up right now. Of course this is just an opinion of mine. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:22, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't the ISBNs have hyphens?
 * You can do it either way, but whatever way you choose should be standardized.
 * Thanks CPA. Parsecboy (talk) 17:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Giants2008 ( Talk ) 21:03, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.