Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Italian battleship Roma (1940)


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

Italian battleship Roma (1940)

 * Nominator(s): — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  

Roma served during the Second World War. She participated in no missions during the war, but was hit twice during Allied bomber raids. Fifteen months after she was commissioned, she was blown up by two German Fritz X bombs. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  04:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments This is a good article, but it feels incomplete and doesn't go into detail on any topics other than her loss.
 * I'm a bit concerned about sourcing:
 * Almost all material is sourced to 'Battleships: Axis and Neutral Battleships in World War II'. While this is an excellent reference, it's not enough by itself. There are specialist works on the Italian Navy which should provide further details on the ship and histories of the naval war in the Med which cover her demise.
 * A Midshipman's War: A Young Man in the Mediterranean Naval War 1941–1943 written by what appears to be a British or Canadian author (who was apparently a very junior officer during the war) seems a curious reference for an article on an Italian battleship. What makes this a reliable source on the ship?
 * The article is a bit brief, even allowing for the ship's short and inglorious career. This may be due to its reliance on a single source.
 * The opening para's prose is choppy and doesn't flow well
 * Warships aren't normally 'deployed' - they either 'sortie' or 'sail' (eg, instead of "Roma was deployed as the flagship of Admiral Carlo Bergamini" you could say "Roma sailed as the flagship...")
 * "When combined with a lack of capable vessels to escort the capital ships, the combat potential of the Italian Navy was vitually non-existant." seems a bit of an over-statement given the continued operations of Italian destroyers, small craft and submarines.
 * "B-17 aircraft fitted with 908 kg (2,000 lb) armor-piercing bombs were able to damage the stationary battleships with two bombs each." is awkward - "The two battleships were each hit by two 908 kg (2,000 lb) armor-piercing bombs dropped by B-17s during a raid on 5 June", perhaps?
 * Did the ship complete a program of shakedown cruisers and working up exercises before entering service, or was sufficient fuel not available? - at present its unclear if she was ever a fully effective unit.
 * "However, an attack upon Italia on Roma at 1537" do you mean "Italia or Roma"?
 * "Roma was hit on the same side somewhere between frames 100 and 108" and "another Fritz X slammed into the starboard side of the Romas deck, between frames 123 and 136" - these descriptions are a bit meaningless in isolation given that readers don't know where these locations were on the ship.
 * Do we know anything about how the German airmen felt about attacking their former Ally's ships?
 * Is there any reason why the excellent 3D images of the ship at Wikicommons haven't been used in the article? Without doing any checking, their copyright status seems OK (assuming good faith on behalf of the editor who signed them and uploaded them as their own work). Nick-D (talk) 11:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Nick, many thanks for the thorough review. I understand the points about a single source and will be attempting to address them. A Midshipman's War is only used to source the ships (the accompanying cruisers), but the specialized Italian Navy work I am hoping to obtain should (I hope) allow me to replace it. According to all the sources I have seen, both reliable and unreliable, the ship did literally nothing but shuttle between naval bases a couple times before the final fateful mission, but that doesn't mean this can't be expanded more... Great point about the frames; I didn't even think about it because G&D has a nice diagram showing where they hit. The 3D images were uploaded by a user who hasn't edited there or on any project since, which made me slightly suspicious... — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  07:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments: The ship was sunk by Kampfgeschwader 100 under the command of Bernhard Jope. I think this should be mentioned in the article. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If I find a mention in the sources I will hopefully get (see below) I will certainly add it... — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  07:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments: the Bibliography is not quite sorted alphabetically (Haworth should be before Knox and Wade before Whitley). Also in the Footnotes you refer to the the Mussolini Unleashed source as being by MacGregor, while in Bibliography it is listed as by Knox, MacGregor. Can you please test and adjust? — AustralianRupert (talk) 02:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Both fixed, good catch re Knox. Thanks! — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  07:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose Sorry Ed but this seems to be another "McArticle" in pursuit of the goals for OMT. I'm really quite surprised that you would submit this in the condition it is in. Furthermore, with only 34 edits to the article how can you possibly believe the article is complete? Why did you avoid the GA process? Nick pointed out far too many issues that I agree should be addressed and I don't believe there is time to solve them all within a reasonable period in order to meet A-class. I don't believe there should be a mad rush to complete articles for a project goal. Please use your library resources. I recently discovered that MelCat has several thousand books in electronic form and there are many naval related titles. Please look for them. --Brad (talk) 03:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't be sorry, both you and Nick have many valid points. It's comments like these that make me glad I come through these reviews!
 * I honestly thought that the article wasn't bad, but I was most certainly wrong. I worked at length in my userspace, so I didn't have many edits in writing it. I didn't go to GA because it's a waste of a month's time. :) I didn't think that this would require a lengthy article due to the ship's inactivity, but I will attempt to address all of the concerns after I get home for Christmas break (requesting inter-library loan to come to my college would be useless when I am leaving in less than a week). — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  07:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment from nominator - withdraw - I didn't think that the reliance on G&D was such a problem, but it obviously is. :-) Also, all of the other points raised are quite relevant. Thank you everyone; my replies are interspersed above. As I will not be able to even think about addressing many of these serious concerns for ~2 weeks, I will withdraw this. Regards, — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  07:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.