Talk:Novara-class cruiser/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Auntieruth55 (talk · contribs) 19:18, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do this in the next couple of days. auntieruth (talk) 19:18, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for taking this long! RL has been busy. This is a really interesting article! I've cleaned up a couple of places where commas were out of place and fixed some typos. See my edits here.
In particular would you look at the action of 31 May 1916. I was very confused by this. It read like the ships were working against German and AH effort, rather than for them. auntieruth (talk) 16:32, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow I forgot to put this on my watch page! Fixed that and will get to work on this right away. Thanks for being so patient.White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 04:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Took a look at your edits. I have to say I agree with them. Thanks for the typo fixes as well. I also reworded the language for the action in May 1916 to make it clear who was on what side.—White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 04:56, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine that! I'm glad they worked, and your edit on the action of May 1916 made it much clearer. I'll pass this now, and if you're taking this further, you might add a line one whose drifters those were auntieruth (talk) 15:25, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! I’ll keep that suggestion in mind if I take this to ACR.—White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 19:41, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed