Talk:Novara-class cruiser

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Auntieruth55 (talk · contribs) 19:18, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I'll do this in the next couple of days. auntieruth (talk) 19:18, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

• I apologize for taking this long! RL has been busy. This is a really interesting article! I've cleaned up a couple of places where commas were out of place and fixed some typos. See my edits here.
• In particular would you look at the action of 31 May 1916. I was very confused by this. It read like the ships were working against German and AH effort, rather than for them. auntieruth (talk) 16:32, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

• Wow I forgot to put this on my watch page! Fixed that and will get to work on this right away. Thanks for being so patient.White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 04:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• Took a look at your edits. I have to say I agree with them. Thanks for the typo fixes as well. I also reworded the language for the action in May 1916 to make it clear who was on what side.—White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 04:56, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• Imagine that! I'm glad they worked, and your edit on the action of May 1916 made it much clearer. I'll pass this now, and if you're taking this further, you might add a line one whose drifters those were auntieruth (talk) 15:25, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review! I’ll keep that suggestion in mind if I take this to ACR.—White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 19:41, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Linking nations

Per WP:OVERLINK we generally don't do this. --John (talk) 02:54, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, just saw this. I understand that WP:OVERLINK means we generally do not link Italy or France in an article, but I don't think that applies in this case as the nations I've been linking to in the article are to Kingdom of Italy and French Third Republic (among others). These are important links that I think should be included in the article as they aren't merely lazy links to modern Italy or France.--White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 04:05, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I know you think that. As locations, these are classic examples of overlinking though. There is also WP:EGG to consider. What is the benefit to the reader of a link like France on an article about a ship? --John (talk) 12:03, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Because France literally owned one of the ships. By that same logic, why should we link Austria-Hungary in any article about a ship from this class? That doesn't seem like a strong argument at all in favor of de-linking the nations involved here under WP:OVERLINK. Again, it's not like I'm lazily asking that we link France or Italy. I'm asking we link to the nations of the historical period who physically owned the ships and operated them. I don't see at all how WP:OVERLINK applies here.--White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 15:08, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Austria-Hungary I would leave linked because it is no longer a country. France and Italy (and Britain) are just links to previous "versions" of the existing and very commonly known countries, which is exactly the sort of thing OVERLINK is designed to prevent. Links like these are of no use to our readers, and may distract them from useful links, which is why they are deprecated. --John (talk) 19:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Unless there was something about the French Third Republic specifically that was relevant to the acquisition of the ship (for instance, say there was a hypothetical arms deal that was rejected by the 4th republic but approved by the 5th under de Gaulle), I would leave this sort of link out. Parsecboy (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Very well, if that’s the consensus that exists I have no further objection.—White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 02:07, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

An oddity

A number of articles, such as the general one on the Austro-Hungarian navy and that on the Durazzo action, describe these ships as having 4" guns. Janes Fighting Ships indicate that 100mm (3.9"), as given here, is the accurate calibre. And it doesn't seem like the Austrian navy ever used 4" guns. There seems to be a small group of editors who insist on altering details and designations of non-British ships to what would be Royal Navy standard at the expense of accuracy. And then claiming "this is the English Wikipedia" to justify themselves. Even if reputable Anglophone sources contradict them. I'll fix these things if there isn't a problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2404:4404:147B:E400:A90D:E2CA:405B:A94F (talk) 11:07, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

This article already says "9 × 10 cm (3.9 in) guns" If you have an issue on another article, either make a change there or discuss it on the talk page for that article.

JeffUK 13:51, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Done. 2404:4404:147B:E400:6166:E581:BE07:363D (talk) 13:15, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

"This article already says "9x10 cm (3.9 in) guns".

No, no it did not. Not a few weeks ago. You or someone like you changed the article AND the comments. 2404:4404:147B:E400:ED14:6E3:4398:E9DA (talk) 14:05, 11 February 2024 (UTC)