Talk:Italian cruiser Umbria

Worth noting

It appears the error in Conway's as to the ship's name in Haitian service ultimately stems from the 1918 edition of Jane's Fighting Ships (or as some have called it, Jane's Frightening Slips), according to this edition of Warship International But contemporary sources (for instance this) confirm that Ferrier was in fact the yacht America, which had been purchased by Haiti but never actually put into service owing to a lack of funds. Contemporary newspapers and other sources confirm the ship's name as Consul Gostrück. Parsecboy (talk) 18:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jonas Vinther (talk · contribs) 21:11, 9 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

The article is well-written with no sentence or grammar errors.

• 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, journal and online sources, all of which are listed with the necessary source information.

• 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 is broad in its coverage, stays on topic and does not go into unnecessary detail.

• Neutral

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

The article is neutral with no 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 stable, does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject 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 with one image in the infobox which is a public domain and uploaded to Commons.

• Pass, fail or hold?

With the article meeting the GA-criteria I'm going to pass it. Good job. :) Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 21:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Repeated revisions of improved versions of page

In fine, stop it. The article's DYK discussion is held up based on the lack of this information in the article and its inappropriate sourcing in the lead section of the article. It is, in fact, an aspect of GA status that the facts in the lead section are not directly sourced but are sourced within the body of the article. GA status will have to be removed if a well-meaning but zealous editor continues to flout that policy. Further, there is no problem whatsoever with duplication of some of the details from the class page and it is, in fact, more helpful to not have to bother with clicking through to see the information currently included, which is relevant to the Umbria itself. — LlywelynII 11:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I could care less what you do over at DYK, and whatever moronic rules you have over there. Perhaps you should share WP:LEADCITE over there, as you all apparently have not read it.

Please do not lecture me over the GA criteria. I have written literally hundreds of GAs and dozens of FACs.

As for duplication of information, again, I'd suggest that until you have the experience writing articles on warships that I do, you ought not lecture me on what should and should not be included in various articles. Parsecboy (talk) 13:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Haitian link

It would be better if the earlier republic had its own page but, pending its creation, the only place to link to is the article on the current Republic of Haiti, which is (apparently) felt to include the regimes under earlier constitutions. — LlywelynII 11:25, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Regioni class

As to the number of members of the Regioni class, the Italian Ministry of Defense (which would presumably know) says there were 7. This is probably something to take up at Talk:Regioni-class cruiser but, regardless of how the discrepancy is resolved, it should probably be noted on the ship pages in some fashion. — LlywelynII 11:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

As I said elsewhere, the link is a primary source and is just wrong. Parsecboy (talk) 12:55, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

We should defer to the preeminent source in these cases, which is Conway's. Why we would purposely include incorrect information that is contradicted by multiple other sources is absolutely beyond me and a perversion of WP:RS/WP:V. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:47, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

photo

here. Parsecboy (talk) 18:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC)