Talk:Italian ironclad Ruggiero di Lauria/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ErrantX (talk · contribs) 15:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	AGF on the offline sources, although I did try to spot check what I could
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Happy with the coverage matching similar articles.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Recently expanded, non-contentious.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	File:Italian_battleship_Ruggiero_di_Lauria.jpg; source appears to be deadlink, not sure what level of problem that raises.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Good selection of images.
	7. Overall assessment.

I'll be happy to review this! --Errant ^(chat!) 15:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Review comments:

Image source problem (see above).
- The link should be good now - it's pretty annoying that these government sites restructure their pages and don't leave redirects. We had/have a huge problem when the US Navy did the same thing with DANFS last year.
Active/Reserve Squadron; for the uninitiated are these as simple as it sounds? Are there any links to articles that can clarify what these are?
- Pretty much - I've tried to add as much context to explain where the source provides it (for instance, the first two lines of the last paragraph) but in writing the articles on these ships, it became clear that the amount of time the Reserve Squadron spent in service changed each year, presumably based on annual naval budgets. I don't know what the official Italian terminology is, but I could probably redlink Active Squadron (Regia Marina) and Reserve Squadron (Regia Marina), and maybe eventually get around to creating articles on them.
Was she sunk by the air raid? Or simply during it (e.g. by some other means)? It sounds silly but I wasn't sure, and the wording is specific which implied the latter to me.
- Yeah, sunk by the air raid. I tried to leave it on the vaguer side, because Conway's unfortunately doesn't say who sank the ship (presumably an Allied raid, since La Spezia was in the area of German occupation after the Italian surrender) and I couldn't find anything on the ship's fate elsewhere.

I made some minor copyedits, please check them. It's a while since I did a GA Review so if it's crud then let me know! --Errant ^(chat!) 15:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They look fine to me. Thanks for reviewing the article! Parsecboy (talk) 12:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I can't find any other problems. Nice article :) --Errant ^(chat!) 13:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]