Talk:Italian cruiser San Giorgio/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jackyd101 (talk · contribs) 22:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I have reviewed this article against the Wikipedia:good article criteria and although I am not quite prepared to pass the article for GA immediately, I don't think there is a long way to go. I have listed below the principle problems which prevent this article from achieving GA status.

The article now has seven days to address these issues, and should the contributors disagree with my comments then please indicate below why you disagree and suggest a solution, compromise or explanation. Further time will be granted if a concerted effort is being made to address the problems, and as long as somebody is genuinely trying to deal with the issues raised then I will not fail the article.

I am aware that my standards are quite high, but I feel that an article deserves as thorough a review as possible when applying for GA and that a tough review process here is an important stepping stone to future FAC attempts. Please do not take offence at anything I have said, nothing is meant personally and maliciously and if anyone feels aggrieved then please notify me at once and I will attempt to clarify the comments in question. Finally, should anyone disagree with my review or eventual decision then please take the article to WP:GAR to allow a wider selection of editors to comment on the issues discussed here. Well done on the work so far.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Issues preventing promotion

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):

"the captain of the ship was dismissed." - of the ship is redundant

Fixed, and reworded. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 00:37, 5 March 2015 (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):

"conducted Crown Prince Umberto on his tour of South America" - state the year this occurred.

Fixed. It was 1924. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 00:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I went though the "What links here" and identified a few links not mentioned in the article. Can you either incorporate this information or explain here why you have chosen not to.

- "The British naval force, including the light cruisers Gloucester and Southampton bombarded the port and engaged San Giorgio, which was not hit by any shells" - why have these ships been singled out? According to its article, HMS Liverpool was also involved.

My mistake.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:16, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"According to the article Italo Balbo he was probably killed by friendly fire from San Giorgio. Any comment on this in this article? (Operation Compass says the same thing]]).

San Giorgio is not mentioned in Playfair or Rohwer as one of the responsible units for the loss of Balbo so I'm not prepared to say that she was in the article. Her AA guns were tied into those of the port so they may well have fired at Balbo's aircraft along with all of the other guns, but I don't know that for sure.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:16, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Captured Leros in 1912 during Libyan War.

Not mentioned in either of my two English-language sources on the war, so I cannot confirm or deny.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:16, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Google and Google Books searches were negative although there's a town on Leros called San Giorgio that confuses the results.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to SMS Helgoland (1912), San Giorgio was flagship of the Eastern Squadron at Istanbul in 1924, but this is not mentioned in the article.

Possible, but not specifically mentioned in my best Italian-language source. I'll see if I can get a hold of that article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:16, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
It is stable.
It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
Overall:
a Pass/Fail:

Thanks for your review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great work, happy to pass. if you come across evidence for any of this in the future, stick it in. Well done.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]