# Talk:Trento-class cruiser

This review is transcluded from Talk:Trento-class cruiser/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 03:35, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Pretty minor stuff from me, this article is in fine shape:

mm is used as the primary measurement in the lead, but then inches are used for the Washington Naval Treaty guns, also with the Argie guns
Fixed
link cruiser and destroyer at first mention
Done
suggest using o/a in the infobox
Done
suggest using shp in the infobox
Didn't think to look at that when I overhauled the box
the max trial speed in the text doesn't match the infobox
Good catch
suggest "shell dispersion" or similar, it isn't clear what it's referring to until the later sentence
Good idea
suggest "tighten shell patterns" or similar
How about "shell grouping"?
worth mentioning that the 12.7 mm guns were actually MGs at first mention and link
Done
worth adding the oclc for Fioravanzo, Worldcat was down when I went to check.
Done
images are all ok.
Cheers, Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 09:11, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Not only doesn't Fioravanzo have an OCLC, it also doesn't have a date - according to Worldcat there appear to be 1960 and 1970 editions.Nigel Ish (talk) 13:04, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Good catch - though I'm only seeing the 1970 edition. Parsecboy (talk) 13:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

The class are described as "very lightly armoured" in the opening part of the article.
This is interesting as the armour belt & citadel appear to have been rather extensive in their coverage and probably considered adequate to provide protection against 6-inch fire (the fast 8-inch type being a brand-new one at the class' inception and very uncommon compared to 'light' cruisers).
By contrast, the British & French equivalents were scarcely armoured at all, with splinter-proofing and internal defence to magazines the main extent. American designs would incorporate a thick strake of armour amidships at the waterline, but this was of very limited coverage by comparison with the Italian design.
I would suggest rewording this from "very lightly armoured" - if one must describe the thickness of plate used as thin by later standards (never the best policy) - to something more along the lines of "extensively armoured to a moderate average thickness", since this more correctly conveys what was provided for and achieved. 2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:A920:CEA1:1:7842 (talk) 14:20, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any sources to support your observation? The idea that the Trentos were very lightly built is well-attested. For example, Brescia & De Toro, both noted experts on the Regia Marina, state in their book Italian Heavy Cruisers that "On the whole, the protection, if not entirely pro forma, was very limited, since in particular, 70mm armour could not represent much defence against hypothetical 203mm projectiles." Parsecboy (talk) 16:19, 9 August 2023 (UTC)