Talk:Littorio-class battleship/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 22:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Progression

• Version of the article when originally reviewed: [1]
• Version of the article when review was closed: [2]

Technical review

• Citations: The Citation Check tool reveals no errors (no action required).
• Disambiguations: no dab links [3] (no action required).
• Linkrot: no External links [4] (no action required).
• Alt text: images all lack alt text [5] (no action required).
• Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool is currently not working, however spot checks using Google searches reveal no issues (no action required).

Criteria

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

  • "while serving as a flagship, crew was increased..." should this be "while serving as a flagship, the crew was increased..."?  Done

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

  a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

  • All major points are cited using WP:RS.
  • No issues with WP:OR.
  • Inconsistent format for isbns in the references. Some have dashes, others do not. Can they be standardised?  Done

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

  • Article seems sufficiently detailed, including design, construction and service history.

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

  • No issues with POV.

• It is stable.

  No edit wars etc.:

  • No issue.

• It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

  a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images): c (non-free images have fair use rationales): d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain:

  • All images appear to be PD or appropriately licenced.

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

  • One very minor point re prose and the issue of the isbns, otherwise this is article looks ready to me. Anotherclown (talk) 23:25, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Fixed both - thanks for reviewing the article! Parsecboy (talk) 23:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
      • Cheers, passing now. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 00:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)