Talk:Italian cruiser Amalfi

Latest comment: 15 years ago by DSachan in topic GA Review
Good articleItalian cruiser Amalfi 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 19, 2009Good article nomineeListed
Did You KnowA fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 25, 2009.

GA Review

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

Below is my review of the article:

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):   b (MoS):  
    1. Something missing in 'The projected of her power plant was 20,000 indicated horsepower (15,000 kW)'. I am not sure, if it should be power or something else.
    2. The sentence 'The ship was completed on 1 September 1909, just over five years after construction began' kind of suggests that its construction began in 1904, but it was actually 1905. I understand that you meant 'the construction of the class' rather than just the ship, but rewording might remove the ambiguity.
    • Well, from the source, I think the construction was begun on both ship in 1904, but since I had compared the launch date to the laid-down date, it is confusing to go back and compare the completion date to the a different starting date. I've reworded so that it reads: The ship was completed on 1 September 1909, just over four years after her keel was laid.Bellhalla (talk) 13:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):   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, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  
Thanks - DSachan (talk) 09:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
I've addressed both points. Please let me know if the rewording on the second sentence reads better. Thanks! — Bellhalla (talk) 13:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
Yes, thanks. It reads better. - DSachan (talk) 13:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)Reply