Talk:Italian cruiser Stromboli

Italian cruiser Stromboli has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Italian cruiser Stromboli is part of the Protected cruisers of Italy series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 5, 2015	Good article nominee	Listed
February 13, 2018	Good topic candidate	Promoted

Current status: Good article

Ships

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips

Military history: Maritime / European / Italian

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	European military history task force
	Italian military history task force (c. 500–present)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 00:13, 1 January 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.	the TT conversions in the infobox and text do not match Hmm, I could have sworn I fixed that in the other articles after the Etna review... "Squadron of Maneuvers" doesn't make sense. What was it? Is that a translation from the Italian? It came directly from the journal - presumably a translation of the Italian, I'd think. "Maneuver Fleet" seems like it should be notable. Red-link? I'm guessing this is probably also a translation, so I don't know what the actual name of the organization is (and unfortunately, unlike, for instance, the German Hochseeflotte, there isn't a fairly well-known English translation [at least that I'm aware of, anyway]). I could red-link it, but I don't know that it would ever go anywhere. suggest The ships were tasked as a training squadron,... Sounds good to me. "Cruising Squadron" also seems like it should be notable. Again, I think this is just a translation - I'd be hesitant to link it suggest linking China Sure
	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.	Several of the sources should have numerical identifiers, the Notes on the Year's Naval Progress for example. Available from Worldcat. All added.
	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.
	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.	One image, clearly PD
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	~~Placing on hold for seven days for comments to be addressed~~ Passing, well done. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 21:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Photo

here. Parsecboy (talk) 19:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]