Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Andrea Doria-class battleship


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Promoted Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:40, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Andrea Doria-class battleship

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

This is a joint effort between Sturmvogel 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. The article is part of the nearly complete national topic for Italy, and it will eventually go to FAC. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 12:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments As usual, this is a very fine article. I have only the following comments: Support My comments have now been addressed Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The second sentence in the first para (a partial summary of the ships' service) doesn't fit in well with the rest of this para at present
 * I'm not sure what you're referring to exactly; the second sentence in the first para in the design section fits the rest of the para, IMO.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think he means in the intro - the bit about them not seeing action in WWI specifically. I've moved that clause so hopefully that will address it.
 * "During World War I, a pair of 50-caliber 76-millimeter guns on high-angle mounts were fitted as anti-aircraft (AA) guns" - do where know where they were mounted on the ship?
 * Added.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Do any sources discuss why it was decided to rebuild these fairly elderly ships in the late 1930s? Some context on why this was done and what was hoped to be achieved would be useful. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Basically, it was a cost issue - Italy had 70,000 LT of battleships available to build under the WNT, but the Italian economy was so weak that no new ships could be built. It was cheaper to rebuild these ships. I can't track down anything specifically on the issue right now, but I'll keep looking. Parsecboy (talk) 18:20, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Added a bit on this. Parsecboy (talk) 11:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey Nick, does this answer your question? Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 12:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was out of town and missed this. Yes, it does. Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Drive by comment: (not a full review, sorry) - I saw a minor inconsistency in the References: "Annapolis, Maryland" v. "Annapolis, MD". If I get time, I will try to come back and look at the full article (sorry, ATM I have a three month old and am working 13 hour days so I haven't been reviewing much lately). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC) Support: G'day, I had a better look this morning and I'm happy the article meets the A-class criteria. I have a couple of observations/suggestions, though: AustralianRupert (talk) 01:23, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you know what the effective range of an excuse is, Rupert? More seriously, thanks for spotting that and we all appreciate whatever time you can spare.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually I do...it cooks off in the barrel and you get a face full of shrapnel! ;-) AustralianRupert (talk) 22:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * inconsistent: "bow...to 186.91 meters (613 ft 3 in)" (body) v. "Length: 186.9 m (613 ft 2 in)" (infobox)
 * inconsistent: "their beam increased to 28.03 meteres (92 ft 0 in)" (body) v. "Beam: 28.3 m (92 ft 10 in)"
 * not sure about this: "a dozen 135-millimeter (5.3 in) 230 millimeters (9.1 in) guns in four triple-gun" (why the two measurements?)
 * is this a typo? "In early 1942 the rearmost 20-millimeter guns mounts were..." --> "In early 1942 the rearmost 20-millimeter gun mounts were..." (remove the 's' from guns)? AustralianRupert (talk) 01:23, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * All fixed. Thanks for looking so closely at this stuff.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:23, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Support -- copyedited as usual, so let me know if I misunderstood or broke anything... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Structure and level of detail seem appropriate.
 * Happy with prose now, just not sure what you std is for quantities under 20: you say "sixteen 152-millimeter (6 in) guns in lieu of the eighteen 120-millimeter (5 in) guns of the older ships" and later "20 Yarrow boilers, 8 of which burned oil and 12 of which burned both oil and coal". Also, you generally use numerals for figures of 20 or more but I see "twenty-one Fairey Swordfish torpedo-bombers".
 * WP:NUMERAL specifies: "Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures" so all measurements/quantities in a single paragraph are treated uniformly when dealing with alike things like gun calibers. Also the next bullet also applies: "But adjacent quantities not comparable should usually be in different formats".
 * Also probably a result of the fact that Sturm wrote the technical portion and I wrote the service section. Parsecboy (talk) 12:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Images:
 * US copyright tag for File:Andrea Doria class battleship diagrams Brasseys 1923.jpg?
 * The drawing was used in the 1915 Brassey's so I've added a US PD tag.
 * Someone's tagged File:Duilio 1948.jpg for source info so you may want to deal with that.
 * It's being moved to Commons, so presumably the reviewer didn't see any significant issues with it.
 * I added a source to it between when Ian and you looked at it ;) Parsecboy (talk) 12:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Cool.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:26, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sources look reliable and no formatting issues leapt out.
 * Thanks for looking this over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No prob, nice work as usual guys. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.