Talk:Littorio-class battleship/GA1

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 22:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Progression

 * Version of the article when originally reviewed:
 * Version of the article when review was closed:

Technical review

 * Citations: The Citation Check tool reveals no errors (no action required).
 * Disambiguations: no dab links (no action required).
 * Linkrot: no External links (no action required).
 * Alt text: images all lack alt text (no action required).
 * Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool is currently not working, however spot checks using Google searches reveal no issues (no action required).

Criteria

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * "while serving as a flagship, crew was increased..." should this be "while serving as a flagship, the crew was increased..."? ✅


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * All major points are cited using WP:RS.
 * No issues with WP:OR.
 * Inconsistent format for isbns in the references. Some have dashes, others do not. Can they be standardised? ✅


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Article seems sufficiently detailed, including design, construction and service history.


 * It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * No issues with POV.


 * It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * No issue.


 * It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):  d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain:
 * All images appear to be PD or appropriately licenced.


 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * One very minor point re prose and the issue of the isbns, otherwise this is article looks ready to me. Anotherclown (talk) 23:25, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed both - thanks for reviewing the article! Parsecboy (talk) 23:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Cheers, passing now. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 00:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)