Talk:Re d'Italia-class ironclad/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 07:02, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

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.	the various dimensions and calibres are a bit "all over the shop", and the infobox ones don't match either, despite the note. One says 200 inches, and some are abbreviated where they should be in full. I suggest adopting either metric or imperial measurements as the first one listed in conversion templates throughout the article. Also, suggest providing ranges of dimensions if the two ships varied significantly. I think this should all be sorted out now.
	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.
	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.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	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.
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.	The licenses are not supported by the information in the descriptions. Date of death of author assumptions or an alternative PD license is needed. Both need fixing. The second one is probably {{PD-art-US}}, but you'll need to make the argument about the likely death of the photographer and 70 pma for the first one. The first one should be sorted out, but the second one I'm not so sure about. The PD-art-US template only applies to photos of paintings (I think) so {{PD-US}} should be more appropriate, but I don't know about the Austro-Hungarian part. I can't find anything out about the author, not even his first name. I'd say since the painting was done in 1895 at the latest (and it's very likely that it was done closer to the time of the battle), it's highly improbable to still be under copyright in Austria, but if you'd be more comfortable if I moved it to en.wiki, I can do that. I've tweaked the description of the first one, I think a reasonable case can be made for PD-Italy and PD-URAA. The second one, well, ok, I don't think it would sail through ACR or FAC as it stands.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Placing on hold for seven days for issues with dimensions, calibres, infobox etc and image licensing to be addressed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:15, 27 August 2016 (UTC)Passing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:50, 28 August 2016 (UTC)