Talk:Italian cruiser Stromboli

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 00:13, 1 January 2015 (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.	the TT conversions in the infobox and text do not match Hmm, I could have sworn I fixed that in the other articles after the Etna review... "Squadron of Maneuvers" doesn't make sense. What was it? Is that a translation from the Italian? It came directly from the journal - presumably a translation of the Italian, I'd think. "Maneuver Fleet" seems like it should be notable. Red-link? I'm guessing this is probably also a translation, so I don't know what the actual name of the organization is (and unfortunately, unlike, for instance, the German Hochseeflotte, there isn't a fairly well-known English translation [at least that I'm aware of, anyway]). I could red-link it, but I don't know that it would ever go anywhere. suggest The ships were tasked as a training squadron,... Sounds good to me. "Cruising Squadron" also seems like it should be notable. Again, I think this is just a translation - I'd be hesitant to link it suggest linking China Sure
	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.	Several of the sources should have numerical identifiers, the Notes on the Year's Naval Progress for example. Available from Worldcat. All 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.
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.	One image, clearly PD
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Placing on hold for seven days for comments to be addressed Passing, well done. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 21:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Photo

here. Parsecboy (talk) 19:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)