Talk:Ammiraglio di Saint Bon-class battleship

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ammiraglio di Saint Bon-class battleship/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wasted Time R (talk · contribs) 01:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC) I have started reviewing this article. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   See below

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   See below

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Pretty good images, considering the era

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Specific comments regarding content:

• What was the verdict on the class's utility? What advantages or disadvantages did the smaller design have?
  • Added a bit on this.
    • That's good. But I think you should start a new paragraph at "The ships, much smaller than their ...", since that's a different time perspective than the preceding text.
      • Sure.
• Was the class's minimal use in WWI purely due to being a pre-dreadnought, or were there other factors too?
  • They were too old and weak to be front line warships.
• What effect if any did the class have on later Italian battleship design?
  • Essentially none whatsoever.
• What exactly happened to the two ships - the article text says "subsequently discarded" - does this mean scrapped, scuttled, used as target practice, something else?
  • The sources are unclear - presumably scrapped, but I don't know for sure.
    • Okay. I guess "discarded" is a fitting word for this class ...
      • • However I just noticed that the infobox says "Scrapped: 2". Since that's not known for sure, is there a more generic entry such as "Retired" that can be used here?
          • Fixed now.

Specific comments regarding style:

• There is inconsistent use between forms like "10-inch" (in the lead and infobox) and "10 in" (elsewhere).
  • Units should be written in full at the first use and abbreviated thereafter.
    • Okay. "Millimeter" is never spelled out - does the first use of "meter" cover that?
      • It's now spelled out in the lead.
• There are inconsistent numbers in metric equivalents: "10-inch (254 mm)" in some places and "10 in (250 mm)" in others; "2.75 in (69.9 mm)" versus "2.75 in (70 mm)" and so on.
  • Errors in the convert template coding - should be fixed now.
    • The 69.9 vs 70 one is still there. Also, I just noticed "3,400–5,500 nautical miles (6,297–10,186 km)" - the metric equivalents shouldn't show more significant digits than the English original figures.
      • Both fixed.
        • Good. However I see that the range in the infobox does not have an mi equivalent while the one in the text does. Intentional or an oversight?
          • Fixed.
• There is inconsistency throughout the article in whether the English measurement is given first and the metric in parenthesis or vice versa. This is especially obvious in the "Armament" portion of the infobox. Since this is a ship from a European country, I would have expected to usually see metric first. I looked at GA article Italian battleship Leonardo da Vinci and it seems to use metric first everywhere. Is there some MILHIST convention that you are following or is this an oversight?
  • The 10-inch guns were an Armstrong Whitworth design (an earlier model of this gun, though we have no article on it) and so should use the measurements of the manufacturer. The same goes for the 6-inch (the RN's QF Mk 1) and the 4.7-inch (the EOC Pattern M) guns.
    • Okay. But why not include the manufacturer in these descriptions?
      • Added in.
• Regarding the locations in the bibliography, it is generally WP style to spell U.S. states out completely, thus "Maryland" not "MD". And "Rochester" needs a state or country.
  • Perhaps for prose, but not in the reference section.
    • Hmm, I can't find the right MOS page for this. But in any case, it should be consistent: Annapolis has a state twice but once doesn't; Indiana is abbreviated "IN" once but "In" the other time.
      • Should all be fixed now.
• The Crawford book isn't used in a footnote, and thus should be moved to the "Further reading" section.
  • Done.
• The ISBN for the Sondhaus book should be formatted. And you should probably use either 10-digit or 13-digit form consistently (I'm fine with 10-digit; you can use this site to easily convert).
  • Done for both.
    • The Crawford one is still ten-digit.
      • Fixed.

If I think of anything else, I'll add it on. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing the article, let me know if there's anything else that needs to be fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 15:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

See the few further comments above. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Just a couple more follow-ups. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, we're done and I'm passing the article, good job. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)