Talk:Italian battleship Dante Alighieri/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Parsecboy (talk · contribs) 14:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   "saw very little action other than the Second Battle of Durazzo in 1918. She never fired her guns in anger" - this implies that Dante saw combat at Durazzo, but then the next sentence says she never fired her guns. Maybe say something along the lines of "she was present at Durazzo, but never engaged any enemy forces"?

   "Leonardo da Vinci failed to reach" - looks like a copy-paste error.

   "They remained in harbor" - "they" is somewhat vague here. Probably better to specify that the Austrians remained in port.

   Good ideas all.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Did the ship respond in any way to the Austrian bombardment of the Italian coast in May 1915? I'd guess not, given that she was in Taranto.

   Why was she disposed of in 1928? I know it was too costly to maintain her, given the rather shabby Italian economy after the war, but most won't know this. One of the books I used for the Caracciolo article talked about this, and specifically discussed which ships the Italians could afford to keep. Can't remember which book though.

   I don't have access to the Washington treaty book, but Sandler and Conways don't really specify. If you could check that one for me, that would be very nice.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

   It changed for me since the other day, but I could piece together the details from snippet views and such. Parsecboy (talk) 13:56, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

   I know the service section is going to be short, given the lack of activity of the Italian fleet in general. But is there anything in the old naval annuals on training cruises and such? I was surprised what tidbits I could find on the French pre-dreadnoughts.

   I checked Google Books, Scholar and a couple of newspaper archives and hardly found anything. About the only thing that I found that I didn't include was that she was at Fiume, but I couldn't find a scholarly article that mentioned her in any significant way, so I left it out.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

   Yeah, if it's not there, it just isn't there. Parsecboy (talk) 13:56, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

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, where possible and appropriate.

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

   Can you try to track down a line-drawing from Brassey's or something? It'd be useful to show the arrangement of the main battery.

   Done. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Everything looks to be in order now, passing for GA. Great work as usual. Parsecboy (talk) 13:56, 31 March 2013 (UTC)