Talk:Italian cruiser Amalfi/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

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]