Talk:Italian battleship Littorio/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 00:01, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi! I'll take this article for review, and should have my full set of comments up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 00:01, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar):
b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
- Lead - should the first sentence say that she was a battleship?
- Good catch
- Lead - link Malta, Alexandria, La Spezia?
- Added
- Description - "that was 280 mm (11 in) with" Should this be "280 mm thick with"?
- Certainly should, good catch
- Fate - "On 19 June 1943, an American bombing raid targeted the harbor at La Spezia and hit Littorio with three bombs. " Do we know what damage this caused?
- Presumably minor, since it isn't mentioned.
- a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- Reference section - Naval Institute Press or US Naval Institute Press (both are listed)?
- Footnotes - Garzke and Dulin or Garzke & Dulin?
- Fixed both.
- a (reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- What is the source for File:Littorio class battleship.png? I'm assuming its a copy from a book/other document?
- I asked the creator, but he hasn't edited Commons in 6 months so I'm not super convinced I'll get a reply.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Overall very nice, as usual. I found a couple of minor prose and reference niggles, and had one question about an image, so I'm placing the article on hold to allow these to be addressed. Dana boomer (talk) 00:30, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for reviewing the article, Dana. Parsecboy (talk) 10:33, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- OK, everything looks good, thanks for the quick changes! I'm still a little concerned about the missing source for the image, but I don't think it's enough to hold up the GAN over, so I am now passing the article. Dana boomer (talk) 17:10, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll try to get the image sorted before I spruce up the article for ACR/FAC, or else just remove it. Parsecboy (talk) 17:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- OK, everything looks good, thanks for the quick changes! I'm still a little concerned about the missing source for the image, but I don't think it's enough to hold up the GAN over, so I am now passing the article. Dana boomer (talk) 17:10, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for reviewing the article, Dana. Parsecboy (talk) 10:33, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- Overall very nice, as usual. I found a couple of minor prose and reference niggles, and had one question about an image, so I'm placing the article on hold to allow these to be addressed. Dana boomer (talk) 00:30, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail:
