Talk:Italian cruiser Basilicata/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 10:00, 24 November 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.	struck in 1937? (Infobox) Whoops, must have copied the box from Campania and forgot to remove that lineY
	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.
	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.	the ship did nothing between completion of fit-out and the date of its sinking? There was a war on, surely she sortied as some point? Nothing I've been able to track down - the ships weren't really intended for naval combat (they'd have been slow, juicy targets for U-boats), they were meant for colonial policing (and I assume they were sent to Italian East Africa, but there's nothing out there to confirm or deny). Marshall (1995) The Encyclopedia of Ships, p. 33 mentions service off North Africa. I know that's not much, but it's something. Thanks for finding that, I don't know how I missed it while I was trawling through Google Books. It'd be nice to be able to see the rest of the entry, but heck, the book is only $2 on Amazon, I'll just order it. I've added what I can from the Google Books preview (to this article and the others) and will add whatever else I can once it arrives. Parsecboy (talk) 13:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)Y
	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.	no images
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	no images
	7. Overall assessment.	Passing, well done.