Another installment in the lists of warships, this one covers the modern battleships built by Italy (i.e., the pre-dreadnoughts onward). It caps the Italian section of OMT, which is rapidly approaching completion. Thanks in advance to all who take the time to review the list. Parsecboy (talk) 16:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Lovely little article :) generally in support but I have a couple of comments. I can be nitpicky so feel free to simply say no if you think any suggestion is too much ;)
Lots of 'design' or 'designs' in the first few paragraphs. Is it possible to have a little more diversity of language?
were discarded after the end of the war; feels like a casual thing to do to a Battleship :) were they decommissioned? Scrapped??
The details on the fates of the early battleships are fairly sketchy - presumably they were scrapped at some point, but I don't have the specifics on when they were sold or when the ship breaking work began.
That's a shame but understandable!
The lifecycle of ships is kind of hard for readers to understand so we should strive to use standardized words for these steps - I prefer decommissioned vs paid off and that's what 'discarded' sounds like. Its probably ok you don't have a cited reference to what happened to the ship (sold, broken up, sunk, etc.). Maybe you can find a different source for those ships that uses the US/UK terminology? Kirk (talk) 15:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Discarded must be what Gardnier used when they didn't know what happened to the ship - its pretty common for smaller navies but its used for some US ships too. Kirk (talk) 15:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
with the rest of the major naval powers; along with? In fact, I'd break up that whole sentence into two as it reads oddly
Sounds fine to me.
Nevertheless; this strikes me as incorrect wording, as you're now talking about the 1930s.
Those concerns didn't go away in the 1930s - the Italian economy was weak for quite some time, and the rivalry with France was always there.
primarily/largely - two vague & imprecise words in the same sentence. Might be worth being more specific about these facts
That seems to be too much detail to go into in the lead. The point is that the Ottomans never came out to confront the Italians, and so the only combat the Italian ships saw was in shore bombardment.
escort convoys to the Italian and German forces fighting the British there; is a little fudgy. Maybe used extensively to escort convoys during the North African Campaign. Or something similar (the additional detail doesn't strike me as important to this article).
Sounds fine to me.
and confusion in the naval design staff; in -> within?
"Within" as a preposition is normally used to refer to a physical place, not something abstract.
Perhaps "amongst" then? In just doesn't read right to me. But not important.
but did not see combat with the Ottoman fleet; I'm probably wrong here... but would "with" used if they were fighting alongside the Ottomans. Whereas I believe they would have been fighting against them? Or have I got my terminology wrong?
Yes, fighting against the Ottomans. "With" is also perfectly fine (as in, "I had a fight with my brother").
I'm slightly unconvinced, for example, I was in combat with my brother, strikes me as unclear, unless you know more context. --Errant(chat!) 10:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
stricken; is this naval terminology? What does it mean?
The pattern of experimentation in Italian capital ship construction continued ; this lost me a bit. The previous section never mentioned experimentation! I'd be inclined to drop this, unless it is important (in which case more context maybe?)
It refers back to the "confusion in the naval design staff over what kind of battleship should be built" bit.
alongside the Ammiraglio di Saint Bon class in the 3rd Division of the fleet; missing comma?
No, there's no comma necessary there.
Hope that helps! --Errant(chat!) 22:07, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing the article and your edits. Parsecboy (talk) 16:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Support on prose/content; I made a few other comments but they aren't critical. --Errant(chat!) 10:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
SupportComments: G'day, I only took a quick look at the presentation of the References:
is there an oclc number that could be added for the Beehler work?
inconsistent presentation: "Annapolis, Marlyand" v "Annapolis, MD" and also simply "Annapolis";
the link for Maryland should probably be moved earlier in the list;
Just removed altogether - I don't usually use links like that as it is, and none of the other abbreviations have them either.
I think a state location should be added for Hoboken;
inconsistent presentation: "London" v "London, UK". Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:12, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Fixed as well. Thanks for checking the refs AR. Parsecboy (talk) 00:16, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm happy to accept others have thoroughly reviewed the prose, so I've added my support as well. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
"The Italians had 70,000 long tons (71,000 t) worth of battleship tonnage that would bring them to their treaty limits": I'm not sure what you're saying.
They were permitted to build a total of 70,000 tons worth of battleships (so two 35,000 ton ships, three 23,000 ton ships, etc.), which would bring them to their 175k ton limit.
Okay, but I'm also not sure if the readers will understand what you're saying; you may want to tell them the same thing you just told me. - Dank (push to talk) 00:40, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
The battleships portal and the Commons Category template should probably be moved to References section, per Template: Commons Category they should not be placed "in a section containing columns without floating left" and should be "placed at the top of the ==External links== section, or at the top of the last section on the page, if no external links section exists."
Repetitive language here: " Therefore, a new battleship that could match the firepower of the new dreadnought battleships was needed..." The word "new" used twice in the same sentence. Perhaps reword?
I just removed the second "new", since it really isn't necessary.
Some inconsistency in the presentation of ship class names. In places you use a hyphen b/n the name and the class, i.e "Regina Margherita-class battleship" but the headings and the prose you don't use a hyphen. I haven't followed the issue but this might be contested at the moment is it? I personally have no opinion about what is grammatically correct but would suggest internal consistency in the article.
The hyphen is required when using the "xxx-class battleship" construction, since there, "battleship" is the noun and "xxx-class" is a compound adjective that describes it. In "the xxx class", "class" is the noun, and "xxx" is the adjective that describes it, and so no hyphen is needed.
"By the time that the Regina Elenas had been built," - it's not entirely clear when this time is (it is clearly prior to 1911, and after the 1890s, but apart from that, the text isn't clear.) Could you go for "had been built in 19XXX," ?
How about "in the early 1900s"?
" the revolutionary British battleship HMS Dreadnought had been completed, which rendered all previous battleships obsolete. " The word "revolutionary" could be read in two different ways here, and I found it a little distracting on first go through. How about " the British battleship HMS Dreadnought had been completed, a revolutionary design which rendered all previous battleships obsolete. "?
"The Italian Navy thereafter built five battleships to two similar designs" - "The Italian Navy built five further battleships to two similar designs" might be smoother.
Sounds fine to me.
"which gave Italy parity with the French Navy" - would "granted Italy parity" be more natural?
" The Italians had 70,000 long tons (71,000 t) worth of battleship tonnage available for new vessels that would bring them to their treaty limits, but they avoided new construction in the 1920s due to severe budgetary problems and to avoid a naval arms race with France" - it's a relatively long sentence - break after "limits"? Hchc2009 (talk) 18:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Sounds fine to me. Thanks for reviewing the list, Hchc. Parsecboy (talk) 12:58, 7 September 2013 (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.