Talk:Italian cruiser Fiume

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Italian cruiser Fiume/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jonas Vinther (talk · contribs) 23:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll review this article shortly. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 23:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• Well-written

a. the prose is clear and concise, it respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct

b. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

The overall article is well-written. Here are some errors or grammar-mistakes I found.

1. Why is the article's title "Italian cruiser Fiume"? Are there another or other articles on Wikipedia that have the name Fiume? If the GA-nominator insist on the "Italian cruiser" addition, considered writing it like so "Fiume (Italian cruiser)".

This is the title prescribed by WP:NCSHIPS - Fiume redirects to Rijeka, which is the modern name for the city.

2. The "Design" section starts off with a further information-link to Zara-class cruiser article which is already linked in the lead.

It's simply intended to point out that the class article has more detailed information on the ship's design - it's a format I've used on dozens of FAs

3. "Fiume was 182.8 meters (600 ft) long overall, with a beam of 20.62 m (67.7 ft) and a draft of 7.2 m (24 ft). She displaced 13,944 long tons (14,168 t) at full load, though her displacement was nominally within the 10,000-long-ton (10,000 t) restriction set in place by the Washington Naval Treaty. Her power plant consisted of two Parsons steam turbines powered by eight oil-fired Yarrow boilers, which were trunked into two funnels amidships. Her engines were rated at 95,000 shaft horsepower (71,000 kW) and produced a top speed of 32 knots (59 km/h; 37 mph). She had a crew of 841 officers and enlisted men" ... "She was protected with a armored belt that was 150 mm (5.9 in) thick amidships. Her armor deck was 70 mm (2.8 in) thick in the central portion of the ship and reduced to 20 mm (0.79 in) at either end. The gun turrets had 150 mm thick plating on the faces and the barbettes they sat in were also 150 mm thick. The main conning tower had 150 mm thick sides" ... "Fiume's secondary battery was revised several times during her career. Two of the 100 mm guns and all of the 40 mm and 12.7 mm guns were removed in the late 1930s and eight 37 mm (1.5 in) 54-cal. guns and eight 13.2 mm (0.52 in) guns were installed in their place. Two 120 mm (4.7 in) 15-cal. starshell guns were added in 1940" - Are we sure that one page from Gardiner & Chesneau's book covers all this information? Almost the entire "Deign" section is based on one page!

Indeed it is - it's all in a table, apart from the bit on the modifications to the ship's armament. Conway's is previewable in Google Books (though the page on the Zara class is omitted) so you can get an idea of how it's written if you're curious.

4. The lead writes the word eight in numbers ("8-inch"), but in the "Design" section it's written in words ("eight oil-fired"). Per WP:NUMERAL all numbers between one and nine should be written in words.

Except that NUMERAL also advises against repeated numerals back to back - "8 8-inch" might be confused, whereas "eight 8-inch" should not be.

5. "the first member of the class to be laid down" - Sine the article lead mentions it's a Zara class might considered changing it to "the first of its class to laid down". But this is just a suggestion.

6. "was commissioned into the Regia Marina (Royal Navy)" - I know what it says, but the catchy phrase "Royal Navy", is generally used to describe the British Royal Navy in the 1930s, where it was the biggest in the world. To avoid confusion, considered changing it to "was commissioned into the Regia Marina (Italy's Royal Navy)".

That's simply a translation, and I don't want to give the impression that "Italy" is somehow part of the name. I think there's enough context, particularly in the introduction, that there should be no confusion.

7. "lavish ceremony held for the visit of Adolf Hitler" - When you say this sentence out loud to yourself, it sounds wrong. How about changing this wording to "lavish ceremony held in honor of Adolf Hitler". This is also just a suggestion.

8. "the dictator of Nazi Germany" - There is no need for the "the" bit, It sounds more right without.

No, I think the definite article is correct.

9. "while Hitler and the dictator of Italy, Benito Mussolini, observed from the battleship Conte di Cavour" - It appears the word "it" is missing between "observed" and "from". Otherwise, one could question what they were observing!

I don't believe so - it refers back to the subject of the sentence either way, and shorter prose is generally better prose.

10. "When Italy formally joined the Second World War by declaring war on France and Britain on 10 June 1940, Fiume was assigned to 1st Division" - First division of what? The navy? That should be clarified. Also, the word "the" is missing before "to".

Added the "the", but the 1st Division was simply a unit in the Italian fleet, much like any infantry or tank division in the army.

11. "and the four destroyers of the 9th Destroyer Flotilla" - If "Flotilla" is the name of a destroyer or some kind of ship, it should be italics, like the other ship mentions in this article, also because it's a foreign word/name.

Nope, it's a flotilla - another unit of the fleet, and it is an English word.

12. "The unit was assigned to the 1st Squadron" - How can a division be assigned to a squadron? Also a navy squadron is usually composed of four major ships, but in this article the 1st Squadron has a total of six. Are we sure this is correct?

Not sure where you're getting that squadrons only have 4 ships, but that's not correct. Divisions are frequently assigned to squadrons (since the latter are usually commanded by admirals), and both usually have at least one destroyer flotilla assigned to them.

13. "but it made no contact with the British ships" - This sentence sounds like the Italian ships went out to look for the British, found them, and said "Ahh, fuck it. let's just stare at the British ships instead". Might considered changing it to something like "but was unable to locate the British ships" or "was not in a position to engage" ... or something like that.

14. "nighttime carrier strike on Taranto on the night of 11–12 November" - Considered reformulation this to "nighttime carrier strike on Taranto in the middle of the night on 11 November". There is essentially no need for the "11-12" addition. This is also just a suggestion, I'd leave the decision to the GA-nominator.

Well, the issue is that the attack took place during both days, and it is routinely expressed this way (see the article itself, for instance).

15. "Campioni broke off the action because he mistakenly believed he was facing a superior force, the result of poor aerial reconnaissance" - How about this reformulation "Campioni called off the battle because he mistakenly believed he was facing a superior force as the result of poor aerial reconnaissance". Just a suggestion.

16. "Fiume (right) along with Zara and Pola in Naples" - Fiume's sister ships is already named and since there several ships in this picture, I would recommend changing this sentence to "Fiume (far right) along side her sister ships". Just a friendly suggestion. :)

17. Lastly, I would strongly suggest re-naming the sub-section title "World War II" to something like "Early engagements" or "Battle of Calabria". By naming it "World War II" you would think all the information regarding the ship in World War II should be within that section, but the next sub-section is all about events that also occurred during World War II. One could also re-name both "World War II" and "Battle of Cape Matapan" into a real section and name that "World War II".

The next section is a subsection of the "World War II" heading, which is itself a subsection of the "Service history" section - this is pretty standard formatting.

• Verifiable with no original research

a. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline

b. It provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines

c. It contains no original research

All the sources used are books. None of the sources cited are out of date and the reference section is not missing any necessary information. All in all, great sources.

• Broad in its coverage

a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail

When considering the time this ship survived, the article is extremely broad in its coverage. It stays on topic and does not go into unnecessary detail. It covers construction, the interior, non-war use, war use, notable engagements, and ultimate destiny.

• Neutral

It represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each

The article is fairly neutral and is not the subject of heated discussion or edit wars. All in all, the article is very acceptable in terms of neutrality.

• Stable

It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

The article is somewhat recently created and the main contributor has added lots of new information in the past days, but since this was all in the face of a GA-nomination it will mean nothing. All in all, that article is stable with no ongoing edit war or content dispute.

• Illustrated

a. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content

b. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

The article is very handsomely demonstrated with a total of four images. For the length of the article, it's pretty good. All the images used are uploaded on Wikipedia Commons and have the necessary and appropriate copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content.

• Pass, fail, or hold?

With the article meeting all standards of the GA-criteria I'm of course going to pass it. Good job on this article, Parsecboy. :) Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 00:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC)