Talk:Italian cruiser Amalfi

Italian cruiser Amalfi has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 19, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 25, 2009.

Italy Low‑importance

	Italy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ships

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

Military history: Maritime / European / Italian / World War I

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	European military history task force
	Italian military history task force (c. 500–present)
	World War I task force

GA Review

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

Below is my review of the article:

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
1. Something missing in 'The projected of her power plant was 20,000 indicated horsepower (15,000 kW)'. I am not sure, if it should be power or something else.
I added the word output so it reads The projected output of her power plant was… — Bellhalla (talk) 13:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. The sentence 'The ship was completed on 1 September 1909, just over five years after construction began' kind of suggests that its construction began in 1904, but it was actually 1905. I understand that you meant 'the construction of the class' rather than just the ship, but rewording might remove the ambiguity.
Well, from the source, I think the construction was begun on both ship in 1904, but since I had compared the launch date to the laid-down date, it is confusing to go back and compare the completion date to the a different starting date. I've reworded so that it reads: The ship was completed on 1 September 1909, just over four years after her keel was laid. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Thanks - DSachan (talk) 09:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed both points. Please let me know if the rewording on the second sentence reads better. Thanks! — Bellhalla (talk) 13:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks. It reads better. - DSachan (talk) 13:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]