Talk:Italian cruiser Lombardia

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Italian cruiser Lombardia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jonas Vinther (talk · contribs) 13:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• Well-written

a. the prose is clear and concise, it respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct

b. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

The article is well-written. Like the other ship-articles related to this one I made some WP:NUMERAL edits, but other than that there is no sentence or grammar errors.

• Verifiable with no original research

a. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline

b. It provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines

c. It contains no original research

The article uses book and journal sources, all of which are listed with the necessary source information.

• Broad in its coverage

a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic

b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail

The article is, despite its length, broad in its coverage, stays on topic and does not go into unnecessary detail.

• Neutral

It represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each

The article is neutral and does not include personal statements or improvements.

• Stable

It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

The article is stable, does not significantly change from day to day and is not the subject of edit wars or content disputes.

• Illustrated

a. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content

b. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

The article is illustrated with one picture in the infobox which is a public domain and uploaded to Commons.

• Pass, fail or hold?

With the article meeting the GA-criteria I'm going to pass it. Excellent job as always, Parsecboy. :) Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 14:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Sourcing

Regarding the movement of sources from the LEAD to the main body of the article and the inclusion of more details about the class there, see this discussion at Talk:Italian cruiser Umbria and the DYK nomination discussion there. (Most importantly, note that repeated inclusion of inappropriate sourcing in the lead could impair the page's continued GA status.) — LlywelynII 11:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Sources in the lead are perfectly fine. Please actually read WP:LEAD. Parsecboy (talk) 12:02, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Italian 'China station'

Presumably, the Italian concession at Tianjin is what was intended here but (without more discussion and sourcing) I'm not 100% on that. If the Lombardia was actually deployed to friendly ports as part of a roving "China station", the added links could be removed but should be replaced by improved links or discussion of just what Italy's "China station" consisted of in 1901. — LlywelynII 11:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

China station is a term (usually reserved for the RN, but applicable to other nations as well) that refers to East Asian waters, primarily off China. Parsecboy (talk) 12:02, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Regioni class

As to the number of members of the Regioni class, the Italian Ministry of Defense (which would presumably know) says there were 7. This is probably something to take up at Talk:Regioni-class cruiser but, regardless of how the discrepancy is resolved, it should probably be noted on the ship pages in some fashion. — LlywelynII 11:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

No, Calabria was not a member of this class of ships. The Italian MoD website is A: a primary source, and B: wrong. Please stop this nonsense. Parsecboy (talk) 12:01, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Photo

here. Parsecboy (talk) 18:37, 7 January 2016 (UTC)