Talk:Italian cruiser Bolzano

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 03:03, 27 August 2016 (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.	I fixed one convert glitch. The number of shafts isn't in the text, but is in the infobox. Good catch
	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.	Konstam needs the location field filled in. Added
	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.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
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.	File:Italian cruiser Bolzano NH-85912.jpg has a licence conflict. It appears to have been PD-Italy on the URAA date, so I'd use that one for PD-US. Same applies to File:Italian cruiser Bolzano NH 85913.jpg and File:Trento and Bolzano NH 86595.jpg That shouldn't be necessary - the NHHC's position is that all photos in their collection are in the public domain unless otherwise specified. Assuming we accept that, then they should use {{PD-because}} and have a link to that statement in the description. PD-1923 requires proof that it was published before a certain date, but I'm not seeing that. All changed over. Parsecboy (talk) 10:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	On hold for seven days for image licensing conflicts to be fixed, otherwise it is good to go. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC) Thanks for reviewing the article, Peacemaker. Parsecboy (talk) 11:02, 27 August 2016 (UTC) No prob, passing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:39, 28 August 2016 (UTC)