Talk:Italian battleship Conte di Cavour/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sven Manguard (talk · contribs) 22:40, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

GAN Quicksheet 1.24 SM
(Criteria)

Starting comments:

1. Well written: Section acceptable

a. prose/copyright: Acceptable

• My biggest concern with the prose right now is the section arrangement. I feel that the first two sentences in the construction section (Conte di Cavour, named after the statesman Count Camillo Benso di Cavour,[14] was laid down at La Spezia Arsenale, La Spezia, on 10 August 1910 and launched on 10 August 1911. She was completed on 1 April 1915 and served as a flagship in the southern Adriatic Sea during World War I.) should really be somewhere at the beginning of the article. It makes very little sense to me to discuss the reconstruction before discussing the initial construction. I can't figure out a way to do that, however, without causing significant disruption to the rest of that section.
• In one of my copyedit edits, I changed some wording that I feel might have been problematic to change. Please check the edit summary marked "(check this one)" for accuracy.

b. MoS compliance: Acceptable

2. Accurate and verifiable: Section acceptable

a. provides references: Acceptable

b. proper citation use: Acceptable

c. no original research: Acceptable

• I am assuming good faith on points 2b and 2c, as all of the sources are offline and I don't have access to them. That being said, you're a prolific writer with a strong reputation, and with the volume you put out I would figure that any paraphrasing would have been caught long ago.

3. Broad in coverage: Section acceptable

a. covers main aspects: Acceptable

b. focused/on topic: Acceptable

4. Neutral: Section acceptable

5. Stable: Section acceptable

6. Image use: Section acceptable

a. license/tagging correct: Acceptable

• The line between artistic photographs and simple photographs that Italian copyright law draws is difficult for me to wrap my head around (without knowledge of the case law). Since both images that this applies to are also in the public domain under U.S. law, however, I'm not going to spend any time worrying about it.

b. relevant/properly captioned: Acceptable

7. Additional items not required for a GA, but requested by the reviewer: Section acceptable

a. images that should have alt texts have them: Acceptable

• I did it for you.

b. general catch all and aesthetics: Acceptable

Comments after the initial review: I did some touch ups as I went, which you may want to check, but this was otherwise fine. It'd be nice if you figured out a solution to the issue I described in the first bullet point of 1a, but I couldn't figure out a solution. Anyways, this PASSES. Consider taking it to DYK. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:16, 26 April 2014 (UTC)