Talk:Italian ironclad Formidabile/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) 02:44, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
I will review this article for GA shortly. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:44, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
- Comments
Overall, I believe that this article is well referenced, well written, stable, appropriately illustrated and has reasonable coverage. I have the following observations/comments, though: AustralianRupert (talk) 03:22, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
- inconsistent: "65.8 meters (216 ft)" in the body v. "65.8 m (215 ft 11 in)" in the infobox
- inconsistent: "14.44 m (47.4 ft)" in the body v. "14.44 m (47 ft 5 in)" in the infobox
- inconsistent: "5.45 (17.9 ft)" in the body v. "5.45 m (17 ft 11 in)" in the infobox
- inconsistent: "sixteen 164 mm (6.5 in) guns" in the lead and Design section v. "16 × 164 mm (6 in) guns" in the infobox
- inconsistent: "2,682 metric tons" in the body v "2,682 long tons" in the infobox
- inconsistent: "1,080 indicated horsepower (810 kW)" in the body v. "1,080 ihp (805 kW)" in the infobox
- All of the conversion issues have been fixed.
- coverage: the Regia Marina article says that it was formed in 1861. As such, I wonder if you should say "newly formed Regia Marina" somewhere in the body to provide more context; also, I wonder, does this mean that the ship was originally ordered by one of the constituent navies (prior to unification)? If so, I think this should be mentioned;
- A good point - added a bit to make clear it was originally the Sardinian navy that ordered the ship
- coverage: should it be stated specifically that the hull was wooden?
- Good idea
- coverage: what was the cost of the vessel? Do the sources say?
- Nothing I've seen - you could sometimes find this info in the old naval annuals, but they don't do back that far
- grammar: "One single-expansion steam engines" (remove the final 's' - singular) - in the infobox
- Fixed
- clarity: should the term "belt armor" be used in the body, given it is used in the infobox?
- Good idea
- clarity: "suggested the island of Lissa..." --> "suggested a raid on the island of Lissa"? (or something similar)
- How about "suggested he capture the island..."?
- clarity: "Formidabile was a broadside ironclad"...I know there is a link, but I wonder if it wouldn't make sense just to briefly explain this in the text; it probably wouldn't need much more than half a sentence.
- See if what I added works.
- clarity: "in La Seyne in December 1860" --> perhaps state explicitly that this was in France, as the lead makes mention of this?
- Good point
- References: is there an ISSN for the Ordovini work? OCLC or ISBN for the Wilson work?
- Good catch, added
- Images: "File:Formidabile (1861).jpg" --> needs a US licence also
- Added
- Images: "File:Italian ironclad Formidabile in 1870.jpg" --> suggest that this should us PD-US-1923 instead of PD-US-URAA
- In all likelihood it was published before 1923, but we don't have a specific source to point to apart from the Italian Navy page, so we can't prove it - that's why I went with the URAA template. Thanks for reviewing the article. Parsecboy (talk) 13:31, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- No worries, thanks for your changes and responses. I am happy the article meets the GA criteria now. All the best. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:40, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- In all likelihood it was published before 1923, but we don't have a specific source to point to apart from the Italian Navy page, so we can't prove it - that's why I went with the URAA template. Thanks for reviewing the article. Parsecboy (talk) 13:31, 28 December 2015 (UTC)