Talk:Italian battleship Giulio Cesare/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Hchc2009 (talk · contribs) 05:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll review; will read through and start properly later on today. Hchc2009 (talk) 05:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Sturmvogel - just about to pass it, great work as ever. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:43, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct;

• "built for the Regia Marina in the 1910s" I'd advise "for the Italian Regia Marina", as I suspect many readers wouldn't recognise the name on its own, and this would give a good clue as to what it was.
• "She served in both World Wars, although she was little used during the former and saw no combat. " - Slightly unclear if the "saw no combat" applies to both wars or just the first. "She served in both World Wars, although she was little used and saw no combat during the former." would clarify this.
• "She was extensively reconstructed between " - might just be me, but I'd have gone for "She was extensively rebuilt between..."
• "when a German mine exploded in 1955. " I'd have gone for "when an old German mine", to clarify it wasn't deliberate
• " half of which burned fuel oil and the other half burned both oil and coal." - "and the other half burning both oil and coal"
• "by a tetrapodal mast," - I've no clear idea what a tetrapodal mast is; any chance of a link or a footnote?
• "one or both of the ships" - "either one or both" would make this clearer
• " Atop the conning tower there was a director fitted with" - I wasn't sure what a director was in this context (a person? a system of some sort?); any chance of a link or a footnote?
• "The deck armor was increased during reconstruction" - I'd have gone for "during the reconstruction"
• "The existing underwater protection was replaced by the Pugliese system that " - "a Pugliese system"?
• " A major problem of the reconstruction was that the ships' increased draft " - "the ship's"
• "with the Greek Government's response " - "government's"
  • Isn't this a proper noun since it identifies a particular government?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
• "Both battleships supported Italian operations on Corfu in 1923 " - I don't think the paragraph has established that there were several battleships - so far only one has been mentioned
• "Both ships participated in a naval review" -ditto
• "Early in World War II, the sisters took part in the Battle of Calabria " - this feels like it's talking about the class, rather than the ship in the article...
• "Conte di Cavour and Giulio Cesare " - I'd have reversed this to focus on the Giulo.
• "was allocated to the Soviet Union as war reparations " - "as part of the war reparations"?
• " where an unsuccessful attempt was made to sabotage the ship. " - do we know who tried to do this? Hchc2009 (talk) 07:43, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Some Italian(s) not named in my sources. Thanks for the thorough review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

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

• Appears to at this stage. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;

• If it helps, the book Regia Marina was published in 1986 - see the OCLC entry http://www.worldcat.org/title/regia-marina-italian-battleships-of-world-war-two-a-pictorial-history/oclc/230923012?referer=di&ht=edition for the details (I've cross-checked against the ISBN number, so this is the right edition). Hchc2009 (talk) 06:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

(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;

• Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

(c) it contains no original research.

• None found so far. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

• Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

• Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.

• Appears neutral. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

• Stable. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Illustrated, if possible, by images:

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

• :File:Battleship Giulio Cesare.jpg needs a US copyright tag
• :File:Novorosiysk-1950-Sevastopol-2.jpg needs a US copyright tag. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

• "Novorossiysk" - could this caption be expanded slightly? (e.g. "The Giulio Cesare serving as the Novorossiysk" or something like that?)
• "Office of Naval Intelligence drawing of the Conte di Cavour class, January 1943" - minor, but are you sure it is actually a drawing? With the shadows, it looks like a photograph of a model ship (but I'm no expert!) Hchc2009 (talk) 06:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review, all done. The ONI drawing could be a photo of a model, but I really can't tell because the quality isn't great. I could see them creating the drawing from a model as well, depending on the difficulties involved in adding photos to a manual during that time.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:32, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm fairly certain they're drawings - I've seen hard copies of the ONI illustrations of German ships and they look like drawings rather than even heavily retouched photos of models. You might consider replacing the image with this higher-resolution version. On a side note, these are apparently all ONI photos, so if you can find better versions of them you might as well add them. Parsecboy (talk) 18:52, 12 April 2014 (UTC)