Talk:Italian cruiser Elba/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 11:13, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

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.	where were the torpedo tubes mounted?Y None of the sources specify where they were. But from the available photos of the ships, one was mounted above-water in the bow. The other was presumably in the stern, but I can't be certain. I'd hesitate to mention the bow tube, because that would only highlight the absence of the location of the second tube. Fair enough. during the Venezuelan crisis of 1902–03, during which "during" is repetitive, suggest "when" for the second occurrenceY Good suggestion.
	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.	Worldcat provides oclc's for the periodicals that don't have them, as well as The Naval AnnualY Added the missing oclcs. the citation Garbett 1901 doesn't appear to have a referenceY Whoops, forgot to copy over the full citation. Good catch.
	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.	The Symonds and Co Collection photographs on the IWM site are "All Rights Reserved". Not sure how we are getting to PD from that? That seems to be a case of copyfraud - according to the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, the current copyright law in the UK, copyright for a work without a credited author expire 70 years after it was created - in this case, 1965 (and actually, under the Copyright Act 1911, the term of protection was only 50 years, so practically speaking this photo has been out of copyright since 1945). So, when was it published? The current license requires a date of publishing (and no public claim of authorship). Evidence is lacking for both. @Nikkimaria: could you please have a quick look at this and check the PD aspect? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC) Date of publication is key here: if it was published before 1923, then it's unquestionably PD. If not, then depending on the exact date it could be more complicated. Is the date of first publication known? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:31, 19 October 2014 (UTC) No date of publication is given, and it's basically impossible to find original publications for old photos like this. I've just replaced it with a photo that's definitely PD. Parsecboy (talk) 12:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC) Problem solvered, I believe.Y
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	no alt text for image (no action required)
	7. Overall assessment.	Placing on hold for seven days for image licensing issue to be resolved Image replaced with PD one, passing. Great work as usual. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:44, 21 October 2014 (UTC)