Talk:Italian cruiser Amalfi/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Below is my review of the article:


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1. Something missing in 'The projected of her power plant was 20,000 indicated horsepower (15,000 kW)'. I am not sure, if it should be power or something else.
 * I added the word output so it reads The projected output of her power plant was… — Bellhalla (talk) 13:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 2. The sentence 'The ship was completed on 1 September 1909, just over five years after construction began' kind of suggests that its construction began in 1904, but it was actually 1905. I understand that you meant 'the construction of the class' rather than just the ship, but rewording might remove the ambiguity.
 * Well, from the source, I think the construction was begun on both ship in 1904, but since I had compared the launch date to the laid-down date, it is confusing to go back and compare the completion date to the a different starting date. I've reworded so that it reads: The ship was completed on 1 September 1909, just over four years after her keel was laid. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:




 * Thanks - DSachan (talk) 09:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've addressed both points. Please let me know if the rewording on the second sentence reads better. Thanks! — Bellhalla (talk) 13:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks. It reads better. - DSachan (talk) 13:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)