Talk:Italian cruiser Marco Polo

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Italian cruiser Marco Polo/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Caponer (talk · contribs) 22:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Sturmvogel 66, I will complete a thorough and comprehensive review of this article within the next 48 hours. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns in the meantime. Thanks! -- Caponer (talk) 22:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Ping!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

Sturmvogel 66, I apologize for the delay, but I have completed my thorough review and re-review of your article, and I find that it easily meets all the criteria for passage to Good Article status. Prior its passage, I do have some comments and questions that must first be addressed. Again, great job on this article. -- Caponer (talk) 23:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Lede

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lede of this article adequately defines the cruiser, establishes the necessary context for the cruiser, and explains why the cruiser is notable.
• I suggest adding in more content from the "Design and description" section, perhaps briefly mentioning the make up of the cruiser's armament, or mention the ship's complement.
• The Italian postcard of the Italian cruiser Marco Polo is released into the public domain and is therefore acceptable for use here.
• The template is beautifully formatted and its content is soured in the references listed below.
• The lede is well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no other comments or questions for this section.

Design and description

• The image of the right elevation and deck plan drawing from Brassey's Naval Annual 1902 is released into the public domain and is acceptable for use here.
• This section is well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no comments or questions for this section.

Construction and career

• I'm assuming the ship was intended to serve as a Far East ship when it was named Marco Polo. Do any of the sources highlight a connection between the two?
  • There were weren't any Italian colonies other than in Africa, so no connection.
• The Italo-Turkish War of 1911–12 can stand to be wiki-linked again since this is the first mention within the prose, but it is fine as is.
• This section is well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

• • Many thanks for your review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Sturmvogel 66, thank you for your timely response. Upon my re-review, everything looks in order here and I applaud you for crafting yet another Good Article! Congratulations and thank you again. -- Caponer (talk) 12:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Citation format

I think the SFN format works better for users. Personally, I am not interested in arguing about it or the procedures. Compare this to current iteration. I will move on, but think the knowing choice should be duly recorded. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)