Talk:Nino Bixio-class cruiser

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleNino Bixio-class cruiser has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic starNino Bixio-class cruiser is part of the Protected cruisers of Italy series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 12, 2014Good article nomineeListed
February 13, 2018Good topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Good article

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Nino Bixio-class cruiser/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 07:30, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 ships were 131.4 meters (431 ft) long at the waterline and 140.3 m (460 ft) long at the waterline? The infobox only has one length, if they were different, a range should probably be given there, and the ships linked to the lengths in the Design section.
    • Whoops, who knows what I was thinking when I typed that ;)
  • suggest Helgoland should be "SMS Helgoland"
    • Sounds fine to me.
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.
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.
  • is there any information about the design specs that the class failed to achieve? I assume speed due to weight, anything else?
    • It's in the propulsion system - they should have been capable of 29 knots but they were indeed overweight
  • the lead mentions they were sold for scrapping, but that isn't in the body.
    • Fixed, good catch - think I forgot to finish the thought when I was writing it.
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. no images
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. no images
7. Overall assessment. Placing on hold for seven days for comments to be addressed Passing, well done. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 03:37, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Photos[edit]

Here, here, and maybe here. Parsecboy (talk) 13:32, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ref to use[edit]

Here. Parsecboy (talk) 10:09, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nino_Bixio-class_cruiser&oldid=1207012056"