733:" 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. "?
757:" 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"?
643:
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
125:
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
647:
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.
725:"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,"Â ?
626:
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."
88:
118:
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.
635:
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?
187:
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.
507:
442:
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.
21:
741:"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.
105:
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 ;)
278:; 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?)
140:
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.
439:"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.
597:
780:
766:
706:
692:
678:
660:
529:
515:
468:
450:
423:
409:
395:
333:
319:
304:
251:
149:
135:
100:
57:
87:
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
17:
445:
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 (
179:
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.
184:
primarily/largely - two vague & imprecise words in the same sentence. Might be worth being more specific about these facts
555:
373:
Just removed altogether - I don't usually use links like that as it is, and none of the other abbreviations have them either.
797:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
564:
39:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
549:
63:
109:
Lots of 'design' or 'designs' in the first few paragraphs. Is it possible to have a little more diversity of language?
419:
391:
623:
231:
the
Ottomans. Whereas I believe they would have been fighting against them? Or have I got my terminology wrong?
91:
of OMT, which is rapidly approaching completion. Thanks in advance to all who take the time to review the list.
622:
The battleships portal and the
Commons Category template should probably be moved to References section, per
281:
It refers back to the "confusion in the naval design staff over what kind of battleship should be built" bit.
644:
have no opinion about what is grammatically correct but would suggest internal consistency in the article.
603:
702:
674:
656:
480:
414:
I'm happy to accept others have thoroughly reviewed the prose, so I've added my support as well. Regards,
503:
484:
415:
387:
126:
up, sunk, etc.). Maybe you can find a different source for those ships that uses the US/UK terminology?
561:
588:
Images all appear to be PD/free or licensed and seem appropriate to the article. One possible issue:
145:
131:
776:
688:
525:
464:
405:
315:
96:
77:
762:
214:"Within" as a preposition is normally used to refer to a physical place, not something abstract.
53:
362:
inconsistent presentation: "Annapolis, Marlyand" v "Annapolis, MD" and also simply "Annapolis";
749:"which gave Italy parity with the French Navy" - would "granted Italy parity" be more natural?
591:
File:Italian battleship Roma (1940) starboard bow view.jpg lacks a source. Could this be added?
199:. Or something similar (the additional detail doesn't strike me as important to this article).
141:
127:
698:
670:
652:
115:; feels like a casual thing to do to a Battleship :) were they decommissioned? Scrapped??
772:
684:
521:
511:
460:
446:
401:
311:
92:
73:
238:
the
Ottomans. "With" is also perfectly fine (as in, "I had a fight with my brother").
758:
49:
329:
300:
247:
165:; along with? In fact, I'd break up that whole sentence into two as it reads oddly
569:
The
Citation Check Tool reveals a couple of issues with reference consolidation:
596:
The Earwig Tool reveal no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing
176:; this strikes me as incorrect wording, as you're now talking about the 1930s.
276:
The pattern of experimentation in
Italian capital ship construction continued
287:
alongside the
Ammiraglio di Saint Bon class in the 3rd Division of the fleet
267:
217:
Perhaps "amongst" then? In just doesn't read right to me. But not important.
566:
so you might consider adding it (suggestion only - not an ACR requirement).
327:
on prose/content; I made a few other comments but they aren't critical. --
193:
escort convoys to the Italian and German forces fighting the British there
227:; I'm probably wrong here... but would "with" used if they were fighting
350:
G'day, I only took a quick look at the presentation of the References:
578:
Whitley, pp. 157–158 (Multiple references contain the same content).
370:
the link for Maryland should probably be moved earlier in the list;
197:
used extensively to escort convoys during the North African Campaign
575:
Preston, p. 175 (Multiple references contain the same content); and
354:
is there an oclc number that could be added for the Beehler work?
638:
I just removed the second "new", since it really isn't necessary.
572:
Beehler, p. 9 (Multiple references contain the same content);
386:
inconsistent presentation: "London" v "London, UK". Regards,
245:, strikes me as unclear, unless you know more context. --
771:
Sounds fine to me. Thanks for reviewing the list, Hchc.
456:
378:
I think a state location should be added for Hoboken;
520:Thanks for your review and edits, as always, Dan.
310:Thanks for reviewing the article and your edits.
400:Fixed as well. Thanks for checking the refs AR.
263:; is this naval terminology? What does it mean?
225:but did not see combat with the Ottoman fleet
8:
18:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Military history
241:I'm slightly unconvinced, for example,
208:and confusion in the naval design staff
163:with the rest of the major naval powers
113:were discarded after the end of the war
683:Thanks for your review, Anotherclown.
581:All fixed, thanks for catching these.
292:No, there's no comma necessary there.
7:
490:First Sirte is linked above, in the
33:The following discussion is closed.
122:That's a shame but understandable!
28:
791:The discussion above is closed.
602:A couple of duplicate links per
270:. Added the link to the article.
728:How about "in the early 1900s"?
243:I was in combat with my brother
1:
781:12:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
767:18:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
707:10:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
693:17:43, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
661:10:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
469:00:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
451:00:40, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
58:20:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
651:Thanks for explaining that.
64:List of battleships of Italy
679:01:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
530:00:16, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
516:13:53, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
424:21:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
410:00:16, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
396:11:12, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
195:; is a little fudgy. Maybe
150:15:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
136:15:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
814:
624:Template: Commons Category
334:10:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
320:16:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
305:22:07, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
252:10:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
101:16:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
554:External links check out
794:Please do not modify it.
36:Please do not modify it.
721:- minor thoughs below:
697:Added my support now.
510:are my edits. - Dank (
481:Second Battle of Sirte
669:Otherwise excellent.
485:First Battle of Sirte
504:standard disclaimer
298:Hope that helps! --
744:Sounds fine to me.
599:(no action req'd).
557:(no action req'd).
551:(no action req'd).
483:": Why no link to
202:Sounds fine to me.
168:Sounds fine to me.
459:make it clearer?
289:; missing comma?
82:
805:
796:
416:AustralianRupert
388:AustralianRupert
70:
38:
813:
812:
808:
807:
806:
804:
803:
802:
801:
792:
266:Yes, see #4 on
89:Italian section
67:
34:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
811:
809:
800:
799:
787:
786:
785:
784:
783:
755:
754:
753:
747:
746:
745:
739:
738:
737:
731:
730:
729:
716:
715:
714:
713:
712:
711:
710:
709:
667:
666:
665:
664:
663:
641:
640:
639:
633:
632:
631:
620:
619:
618:
617:
616:
610:
600:
594:
593:
592:
586:
585:
584:
583:
582:
576:
573:
567:
558:
552:
535:
534:
533:
532:
497:
496:
495:
477:
476:
475:
474:
473:
472:
471:
431:
430:
429:
428:
427:
426:
384:
383:
382:
376:
375:
374:
368:
367:
366:
360:
359:
358:
339:
338:
337:
336:
296:
295:
294:
293:
284:
283:
282:
273:
272:
271:
258:
257:
256:
255:
254:
234:Yes, fighting
222:
221:
220:
219:
218:
205:
204:
203:
190:
189:
188:
182:
181:
180:
171:
170:
169:
160:
159:
158:
157:
156:
155:
154:
153:
152:
110:
86:
84:
83:
72:Nominator(s):
66:
61:
43:
42:
41:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
810:
798:
795:
789:
788:
782:
778:
774:
770:
769:
768:
764:
760:
756:
751:
750:
748:
743:
742:
740:
735:
734:
732:
727:
726:
724:
723:
722:
720:
708:
704:
700:
696:
695:
694:
690:
686:
682:
681:
680:
676:
672:
668:
662:
658:
654:
650:
649:
646:
645:
642:
637:
636:
634:
629:
628:
625:
621:
614:
613:
612:World War I.
611:
608:
607:
605:
604:WP:REPEATLINK
601:
598:
595:
590:
589:
587:
580:
579:
577:
574:
571:
570:
568:
565:
563:
559:
556:
553:
550:
548:No dab links
547:
546:
545:
542:
541:
537:
536:
531:
527:
523:
519:
518:
517:
513:
509:
505:
502:on prose per
501:
498:
493:
489:
488:
486:
482:
478:
470:
466:
462:
458:
454:
453:
452:
448:
444:
443:
441:
440:
438:
437:
436:
435:
425:
421:
417:
413:
412:
411:
407:
403:
399:
398:
397:
393:
389:
385:
380:
379:
377:
372:
371:
369:
364:
363:
361:
356:
355:
353:
352:
351:
349:
347:
343:
335:
332:
331:
326:
323:
322:
321:
317:
313:
309:
308:
307:
306:
303:
302:
291:
290:
288:
285:
280:
279:
277:
274:
269:
268:wikt:stricken
265:
264:
262:
259:
253:
250:
249:
244:
240:
239:
237:
233:
232:
230:
226:
223:
216:
215:
213:
212:
209:
206:
201:
200:
198:
194:
191:
186:
185:
183:
178:
177:
175:
172:
167:
166:
164:
161:
151:
147:
143:
139:
138:
137:
133:
129:
124:
123:
121:
120:
117:
116:
114:
111:
108:
107:
106:
103:
102:
98:
94:
90:
81:
79:
75:
69:
68:
65:
62:
60:
59:
55:
51:
48:
40:
37:
31:
30:
23:
19:
793:
790:
718:
717:
699:Anotherclown
671:Anotherclown
653:Anotherclown
560:Images lack
543:
539:
538:
512:push to talk
499:
491:
447:push to talk
433:
432:
345:
344:
341:
340:
328:
324:
299:
297:
286:
275:
260:
246:
242:
235:
228:
224:
207:
196:
192:
174:Nevertheless
173:
162:
112:
104:
85:
71:
46:
44:
35:
32:
615:Both fixed.
609:Rhodes; and
479:"First and
210:; in -: -->
22:Assessment
773:Parsecboy
685:Parsecboy
522:Parsecboy
461:Parsecboy
402:Parsecboy
312:Parsecboy
229:alongside
93:Parsecboy
74:Parsecboy
759:Hchc2009
562:Alt Text
540:Comments
494:section.
434:Comments
346:Comments
261:stricken
211:within?
50:Hawkeye7
47:promoted
45:Article
20: |
719:Support
544:Support
500:Support
342:Support
325:Support
236:against
630:Moved.
492:Cavour
381:Added.
365:Fixed.
357:Added.
330:Errant
301:Errant
248:Errant
752:Sure.
508:These
455:Does
16:<
777:talk
763:talk
703:talk
689:talk
675:talk
657:talk
526:talk
465:talk
457:this
420:talk
406:talk
392:talk
316:talk
146:talk
142:Kirk
132:talk
128:Kirk
97:talk
78:talk
54:talk
736:Ok.
779:)
765:)
705:)
691:)
677:)
659:)
606::
528:)
514:)
506:.
487:?
467:)
449:)
422:)
408:)
394:)
318:)
148:)
134:)
99:)
56:)
775:(
761:(
701:(
687:(
673:(
655:(
524:(
463:(
418:(
404:(
390:(
348::
314:(
144:(
130:(
95:(
80:)
76:(
52:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.