Talk:Regina Maria Pia-class ironclad

Regina Maria Pia-class ironclad 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.
Review: December 12, 2015. (Reviewed version).

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 articles

Military history: Maritime / European / Italian

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 articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	European military history task force
	Italian military history task force (c. 500–present)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Regina Maria Pia-class ironclad/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 09:49, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	suggest Curiously, Ancona... Works for me The normal load displacement is given as long tons in the infobox, but metric tons in the body, and the conversion doesn't match; there is no conversion of the draft in the body; the conversions of the armor in the infobox and body have a rounding error Should all be fixed, except for the one unconverted draft - that's there because the same figure (6.35m) is converted already.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	there a few instances of repeated links in the body, hull (watercraft), Austrian Navy, Carlo Pellion di Persano and Italian unification All fixed
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	File:Regina maria pia (1863).jpg - I would have thought it was {{PD-Italy}} and needs a US tag. It needs something in the summary making some assumption about the date of publication for the 95 year rule/author's date of death for the 70 years pma rule. It is also worth noting that the source is the Italian Navy website which doesn't display any copyright information for this pic. I'd change the source link to the class gallery page rather than the raw file for clarity. {{PD-Italy}} and {{PD-US}} are sufficient ({{PD-US-1996}} isn't on Commons, AFAIK), since the photo would have been out of copyright on the URAA date. On Commons, you can use PD-1923 (which is slightly different from PD-US) if the photo was published before 1923, and PD-1996 (their URAA template) if it wasn't or if you can't demonstrate that. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:19, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] File:Regina Maria Pia (1863) Plan.jpg - I would have thought it was {{PD-UK-unknown}} and needs a US tag. It also needs something in the summary making it clear we are relying on the publication date + 70 years rule, or some assumption about the author's date of death for the 70 years pma rule. Same as above. As above, use PD-1923 for the US copyright. Also, while you can use the EU tag, it would be preferable to use the more specific UK version. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:19, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] File:Castelfidardo frigate 1864 01.jpg - source isn't given but it bears a mark of "A. Bermoud", needs a US tag, it certainly needs information about what assumptions are being made regarding the publication or author's death Given the resolution and quality of the image, the uploader seems to have scanned it from a photo in his possession. That being said, it's obviously been published before, given that there's this version available. I've added a link to the marina.difesa.it site. Thanks for reviewing the article, PM. Parsecboy (talk) 21:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] Nikki, I'd appreciate it if you would give me a second opinion on the licensing of these three images. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:39, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] Do we know when and where it was published first? The Italian tag requires first publication in Italy. And as above, either PD-1923 or PD-1996 should be added. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:19, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] No original publication info, and for images this old, it's essentially impossible to find. Given they're both hosted on the Italian Navy's website, we can assume they're Italian images. Parsecboy (talk) 13:24, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] Okay, then just adding a US tag should be fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:42, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] Should be good to go now. Thanks Nikki. Parsecboy (talk) 14:38, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	~~Placing on hold for seven days for the image comments to be addressed~~. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC) Points all addressed. Passing. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:59, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]