Talk:Italian cruiser Marco Polo/GA1

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

Reviewer: Caponer (talk · contribs) 22:52, 27 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) 22:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Ping!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


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

, I apologize for the delay, but I have completed my thorough review and re-review of your article, and I find that it easily meets all the criteria for passage to Good Article status. Prior its passage, I do have some comments and questions that must first be addressed. Again, great job on this article. -- Caponer (talk) 23:21, 2 March 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 necessary context for the cruiser, and explains why the cruiser is notable.
 * I suggest adding in more content from the "Design and description" section, perhaps briefly mentioning the make up of the cruiser's armament, or mention the ship's complement.
 * The Italian postcard of the Italian cruiser Marco Polo is released into the public domain and is therefore acceptable for use here.
 * The template is beautifully formatted and its content is soured in the references listed below.
 * The lede is 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
 * The image of the right elevation and deck plan drawing from Brassey's Naval Annual 1902 is released into the public domain and is acceptable for use here.
 * 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 career
 * I'm assuming the ship was intended to serve as a Far East ship when it was named Marco Polo. Do any of the sources highlight a connection between the two?
 * There were weren't any Italian colonies other than in Africa, so no connection.
 * The Italo-Turkish War of 1911–12 can stand to be wiki-linked again since this is the first mention within the prose, but it is fine as is.
 * This section is well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.


 * Many thanks for your review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sturmvogel 66, thank you for your timely response. Upon my re-review, everything looks in order here and I applaud you for crafting yet another Good Article! Congratulations and thank you again. -- Caponer (talk) 12:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)