Talk:Italian battleship Littorio

Italian battleship Littorio has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Italian battleship Littorio is part of the Battleships of Italy series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 31, 2014	Good article nominee	Listed
September 11, 2015	Good topic candidate	Promoted

Current status: Good article

Ships

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips

Military history: Maritime / European / Italian / World War II / Operation Majestic Titan

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	European military history task force
	Italian military history task force (c. 500–present)
	World War II task force
	Operation Majestic Titan (Phase I)

Italy Mid‑importance

	Italy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 00:01, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'll take this article for review, and should have my full set of comments up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 00:01, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Lead - should the first sentence say that she was a battleship?

Good catch

Lead - link Malta, Alexandria, La Spezia?

Added

Description - "that was 280 mm (11 in) with" Should this be "280 mm thick with"?

Certainly should, good catch

Fate - "On 19 June 1943, an American bombing raid targeted the harbor at La Spezia and hit Littorio with three bombs. " Do we know what damage this caused?

Presumably minor, since it isn't mentioned.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Reference section - Naval Institute Press or US Naval Institute Press (both are listed)?

Footnotes - Garzke and Dulin or Garzke & Dulin?

Fixed both.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
What is the source for File:Littorio class battleship.png? I'm assuming its a copy from a book/other document?

I asked the creator, but he hasn't edited Commons in 6 months so I'm not super convinced I'll get a reply.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Overall very nice, as usual. I found a couple of minor prose and reference niggles, and had one question about an image, so I'm placing the article on hold to allow these to be addressed. Dana boomer (talk) 00:30, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reviewing the article, Dana. Parsecboy (talk) 10:33, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, everything looks good, thanks for the quick changes! I'm still a little concerned about the missing source for the image, but I don't think it's enough to hold up the GAN over, so I am now passing the article. Dana boomer (talk) 17:10, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll try to get the image sorted before I spruce up the article for ACR/FAC, or else just remove it. Parsecboy (talk) 17:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]