Talk:Italian battleship Littorio

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Italian battleship Littorio 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.
Good topic star Italian battleship Littorio is part of the Battleships 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
March 31, 2014 Good article nominee Listed
September 11, 2015 Good topic candidate Promoted
Current status: Good article

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 00:01, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi! I'll take this article for review, and should have my full set of comments up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 00:01, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    • Lead - should the first sentence say that she was a battleship?
    • Good catch
    • Lead - link Malta, Alexandria, La Spezia?
    • Added
    • Description - "that was 280 mm (11 in) with" Should this be "280 mm thick with"?
    • Certainly should, good catch
    • Fate - "On 19 June 1943, an American bombing raid targeted the harbor at La Spezia and hit Littorio with three bombs. " Do we know what damage this caused?
    • Presumably minor, since it isn't mentioned.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    • Reference section - Naval Institute Press or US Naval Institute Press (both are listed)?
    • Footnotes - Garzke and Dulin or Garzke & Dulin?
    • Fixed both.
  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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    • I asked the creator, but he hasn't edited Commons in 6 months so I'm not super convinced I'll get a reply.
  7. Overall:
    Overall very nice, as usual. I found a couple of minor prose and reference niggles, and had one question about an image, so I'm placing the article on hold to allow these to be addressed. Dana boomer (talk) 00:30, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
    Thanks for reviewing the article, Dana. Parsecboy (talk) 10:33, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
    OK, everything looks good, thanks for the quick changes! I'm still a little concerned about the missing source for the image, but I don't think it's enough to hold up the GAN over, so I am now passing the article. Dana boomer (talk) 17:10, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
    Thanks, I'll try to get the image sorted before I spruce up the article for ACR/FAC, or else just remove it. Parsecboy (talk) 17:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC)