Talk:Conte di Cavour-class battleship/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Parsecboy (talk · contribs) 22:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC) Thanks for taking this on. WikiCopter (t • c • onau) 22:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
You have "armour" and "draught" in the infobox but "armor" in the article. Does this article use AE or BE? Pick one and stick with it.
Sorry. The infobox is ~~fixed~~, and I don't know how to change the automatically displayed text.

The infobox is set in stone, which is what I meant by 'fixed'. it has not been changed, rather, it is unchangeable. Sorry if I confused you. WikiCopter (t • c • onau) 00:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch. My brain hurts from navigating so fast. Infobox now fixed by AustralianRupert. WikiCopter (t • c • onau) 00:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through and fixed a lot of things in the Design section, but you'll want to look over my changes and incorporate them into future articles you work on. For instance, you can't have a "geared direct drive turbine" - reduction gears necessarily mean that the turbines do not directly drive the shafts. You shouldn't use two numbers together (as in 13 305mm guns) - spell out the quantity and use a number for the caliber/whatever. Also keep an eye on links like length at the waterline, Parsons Marine Steam Turbine Company, etc. Parsecboy (talk) 13:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't use "the" before a ship name. The only person to use the definite article before his name is a bit of a douche. Parsecboy (talk) 13:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing this.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Who is Randal in cite #7?
References error. Fixed.

This Osprey has some information on the class and should be consulted. A broader range of references should be consulted if you plan on taking this article above GA.
Thanks. I will incorporate some information from there.
Unable to read the section dealing with the Conte di Cavours
Say, don't you have some books that contain information about this class? Do you mind looking it up in a few of your better books? WikiCopter (t • c • onau) 00:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have anything specifically on this class - you might consider looking through the old Warship Internationals and other naval journals for articles on them, especially if you plan on taking this article to ACR and FAC. The WI articles can be quite good. Parsecboy (talk) 13:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are a couple of articles on the raising of Leonardo da Vinci in the 1964 volume of Warship International, Nos. 4 and 6, if you can get them through your library. Looks to be the only thing in WI that covers anything on these ships. Parsecboy (talk) 20:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
There are significant gaps here that I expect in a GA-level ship class article. Look at any of the class articles here for an idea of what should be added. For instance, the Design section is bare bones. You need to add a description of the armor layout of the ship, not just the changes that were made in the modernization.
This information is not available. However, I have some new information in Conway's I will add.

The infobox says that the Caracciolo class was planned to succeed this class instead of the Andrea Dorias. This is incorrect.
Fixed.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Significant problems:
File:RNConte di Cavour-Original.jpg - dead link, no author, so how do we know when 70pma is? Also, how is it PD in the US?
I suppose {{PD-1923}} should do the trick. WikiCopter (t • c • onau) 00:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you need a pre-1923 date of publication. That it was taken before 1923 doesn't matter, it had to be published somewhere. I don't know Italian copyright law, so if it's an official picture, it might be PD for that reason, but you'll need to check on that if you want to keep the photo. Parsecboy (talk) 13:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:GiulioCesare1914.jpg - dead link, explain how the template means anything, how is it PD in the US, etc.?
Dang, I should have checked up on these. I just used them because I didn't see any warnings, and there were PD templates. I didn't stop to make sure about them. I suppose the same PD that applies to the first image applies to all. WikiCopter (t • c • onau) 00:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Same problem here with the PD-US-1923 tag - need a date of publication (and the publication itself), not creation (see for instance this image I uploaded. Parsecboy (talk) 13:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Giulio Cesare leads Italian battlefleet 1918.jpg - pre-1923 date of publication for US copyright law? How exactly does this meet the minimum threshold for PD in Italy?

File:Italian battleship Leonardo da Vinci.jpg - same here.

File:Italian battleship Leonardo da Vinci refloated.jpg - and here too.
There are some images here that should be usable, since they're considered PD by the US government. Parsecboy (talk) 20:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Parsecboy (talk) 22:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Parsec. I accidentally reverted your edits in a edit conflict. Try again. I promise not to mess with it this time. For the rest of your concerns... I am stuck in the real world and pressed hard. Must go now. Fix them later. WikiCopter (t • c • onau) 22:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem, and if you need more time to work on the article, I'm fine with allowing the GAN go for longer than the typical 7 day period. Parsecboy (talk) 00:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was just a one-day rush. I have time now, although I will be pressed again on Friday, probably being offline the whole day. WikiCopter (t • c • onau) 00:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the by, where do you get this review template? It would be useful. WikiCopter (t • c • onau) 00:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I copied it from somewhere years ago, now I have it saved here. Parsecboy (talk) 13:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gratis.

Random, assorted other notes, if that's okay. They certainly aren't requirements, just suggestions for further development if you're interested enough in the topic.
- - Of course. Everything is OK.
- I have no idea if this is in your sources, but was there any controversy over the ships' construction, or was it taken in stride that the ships were necessary for the defense of the nation? I suppose this question could apply to the decision to reconstruct the two ships too.
  - Not in sources.
- Why was the class reconstructed as opposed to building new ships? I assume it was either due to cost or treaty limitations, but it's certainly something you can add.
- The Conte di Cavour section looks beautiful. By comparison, it makes the Giulio Cesare paragraph look choppy. Can we combine all of those lines into two paragraphs?
  - I didn't copy everything over into the Cesare para, cuz both ships' careers were so similar. Suggestions for what to do?
    - Sometimes what I do, where service histories are very similar, is merge them all into one section (see for instance on the Littorio class battleship article) to minimize the overlap and also having one long section and a comparatively sparse one.
- Are there any newspaper articles out there carrying reactions to the class' construction and/or commissioning? You can try looking at the Google News Archive and Chronicling America.
- If they are in a library near you, these two books could be useful.
- Good luck with the images. I know copyright can be completely nuts, especially Italian copyright laws, which distinguish between "simple photographs" and "works of artistic photography" (something like that) ... without providing a clear definition of just what the former is. Generally you're going to have to find out who the photographer was, and if they died more than seventy years ago. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:48, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ouch... checking. WikiCopter (t • c • onau • omt • cvu) 18:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is this review still going on? Been a month. Wizardman 14:43, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm taking over since Wikicopter has been AWOL for a while.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:22, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've replaced the pics and generally rewritten the entire thing. Lemme know what I've missed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:46, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It all looks good to me, Sturm, thanks for taking over the article and cleaning things up. I'll pass this now. Parsecboy (talk) 21:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]