Talk:Zara-class cruiser/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · contribs) 05:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Will take this one. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• Lead and infobox;
  • Put in the translation of Regina Marina
    • Good catch, had forgotten to include that this time.
  • Mention long at water line and long overall parameters in the infobox (out of GA criteria)
    • Those are both already there
• Section 1; all good
• Section 1.1;
  • The class was named after Zara, but why was made the Pola for flagships, any specific reason?
    • I haven't come across any reason for the different bridge
  • Check the power parameter of the infobox, I think it is to be "shp" as it is the shaft horsepower, better to use the same units in the prose and infobox as well. Something like the use of kW and MW
    • Good catch
• Section 1.2;
  • year of introduction of the Des Moines class
    • Good idea
• Section 2; all good
• Section 3;
  • the four members -> all the ships
  • with the fleet; which fleet?
    • Clarified
  • from "British aircraft-carrier" HMS Eagle
    • Added
  • what about the personnel from the sunk ships? any survivors?
    • Added details on this.
• File:Cruiser_Pola.jpg has no valid date and also the license I think so, date must be the first published date and also it must contain the details about the original author. However, I am not pretty sure about. May be you know better.
  • The uploader is the creator of the image, so the upload date is the publication date.
• 0% confidence, violation none.

Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 09:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your review. Parsecboy (talk) 13:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: - is there anything left to do here? Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 15:10, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:34, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

---

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): 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): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

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:

   Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:34, 1 March 2017 (UTC)