Talk:Italian cruiser Francesco Ferruccio/GA1

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

Reviewer: Caponer (talk · contribs) 17:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

, I will complete a thorough and comprehensive review of this article within the next 48 hours. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns in the meantime. Thanks! -- Caponer (talk) 17:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


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

, I've completed a thorough and comprehensive review and re-review of this article, and I find that it meets all the criteria for passage to Good Article status. Prior to its passage, however, I have shared below some comments and questions that should be addressed. Thanks again for all your hard work on this article. -- Caponer (talk) 17:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): 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 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Lede
 * Per Manual of Style/Lead section, the lede of this article adequately defines the cruiser, establishes the cruiser's necessary context, and explains why the cruiser is notable.
 * The info box is beautifully formatted and its content is sourced within the prose of the text and by the referenced cited therein.
 * The image of Giuseppe Garibaldi is released into the public domain is therefore acceptable for use here.
 * The lede could stand to have some more content included from the "Design and description" section for a more comprehensive summary of the entire article. This could be done by stating how many guns the ship had, or mentioning the size and number of its compliment.
 * The lede is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no other comments or questions for this section.

Design and description
 * This section is well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no comments or questions for this section.

Construction and service
 * Wiki-link La Maddalena, Sardinia, Levant, and Crete in the first paragraph.
 * Wiki-link Tripoli in the second paragraph.
 * In the third paragraph, it should be specified for the reader that the actions around Ragusa were in the Adriatic Sea.
 * This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no comments or questions for this section.
 * I've linked everything that hadn't already been linked in the lede and added a mention of the Adriatic to the article as you requested. Thanks for your review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * , I've reviewed and re-reviewed the article and find that it looks good to proceed to Good Article status. Thank you for all your hard work on this article! -- Caponer (talk) 18:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)