Talk:Italian cruiser Piemonte

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jonas Vinther (talk · contribs) 20:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Another ship article, Parsecboy? I'll review this shortly. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 20:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Don't look now, but this is the next project! Thanks for taking on another review Jonas. Parsecboy (talk) 20:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• Well-written

a. the prose is clear and concise, it respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct

b. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

Here is a list of sentence or grammar errors I found.

1. "Calabria was 92.73 meters" - Ummm ... Parsecboy, did you mistakenly write Calabria instead of Piemonte?

Whoops, good catch.

2. "Piemonte had a crew of between" - This needs to be re-written so something like "Piemonte's crew consisted of between".

I think it's fine as is.

3. "while en route to Asian waters" - Visibly misspelled word.

I don't see anything misspelled, and Firefox isn't highlighting anything either.

"Isn't "en" misspelled? Shouldn't it be "on"?

Nope, it's en route. Parsecboy (talk) 11:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

4. "In September 1902 that year she was in" - This also needs to be re-written to something like "In September 1902 she was in".

Yeah, I rewrote that paragraph so many times as I found more info - it's easy to lose track of what to remove.

5. When the previous sentence started off with "That year" don't start off the next sentence with "The following year".

Should be fixed now

6. Why write twenty-five in numbers and fifty in words?

I prefer to spell out numbers that can be expressed in a single word

• Verifiable with no original research

a. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline

b. It provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines

c. It contains no original research

The article uses book sources which all contain the necessary information and ISBN or OCLC numbers (except those books too old).

• Broad in its coverage

a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic

b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail

The article focuses on the main details, stays on topic and does not go into unnecessary detail.

• Neutral

It represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each

The is neutral without any personal opinions or statements.

• Stable

It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

The article is very stable with no history of edit wars or content disputes.

• Illustrated

a. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content

b. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

The article is illustrated well with four images, three of which are public domains and the last one contains the required text/copyright information.

• Pass, fail or hold?

The overall article meets the GA-criteria with some tiny errors. Because I know the GA-nominator will respond to those right away and makes the tiny changes accordingly I'm going to pass it. Good job. :) Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 21:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)