Talk:Italian battleship Roma (1907)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Italian battleship Roma (1907)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dank (talk · contribs) 09:57, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Review

• The toolbox checks out.
• "After completing of fitting-out work, the ship was completed": After fitting-out work, the ship was completed ...
• "From her commissioning": AmEng isn't fully on board yet with this sense of "from" ... it's okay when it couldn't possibly mean anything else, but it could, here. "After her commissioning"
• "recently-conquered": recently conquered
• "The Italian heavy ships demonstrated off the city of Rhodes": This sense of "demonstrate" isn't in the usual dictionaries, so reword, perhaps.
• "mount an active fleet policy": It sounds a tad odd to my ear to mount a policy.
  • See how it reads now.
• "while smaller vessels, such as the MAS boats conducted raids": Just FYI for the good writers ... note that my new standard disclaimer (for A-class and FAC) says that someone else may want to check things like punctuation, and that's in part because I'm declaring defeat ... I've been talking about comma rules for years, and it's not doing a lot of good, in part because comma rules are changing rapidly, and in part because people are less likely to care. But FWIW, "such as the MAS boats" is a parenthetical statement, and parenthetical statements are bracketed by either two commas or none, according to every punctuation guide I've seen.
  • Well, I had used up so many commas on those German avisos that I figured I was past my limit ;)
• "during the war. [paragraph break] During the war": repetition
• "the ensuring Battle": the ensuing Battle
• You could trim a bit from "Due to" to the end of the article without a loss of information, I think.
  • How about trimming the clause about comparing them to modern dreadnoughts?
• The first image's description page says that it lacks source information.
  • Added the presumed source of the photo.
• Otherwise:

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): 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 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   - Dank (push to talk) 15:02, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

   Thanks for reviewing the article Dan. Everything should be fixed per your suggestions. Parsecboy (talk) 18:25, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Passed. - Dank (push to talk) 19:11, 30 June 2013 (UTC)