Talk:Italian battleship Emanuele Filiberto

	Italian battleship Emanuele Filiberto 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 Emanuele Filiberto 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 July 12, 2013 Good article nominee Listed September 11, 2015 Good topic candidate Promoted
Current status: Good article

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

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 I / 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 I task force Operation Majestic Titan (Phase I)

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

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 10:26, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing this one, it looks good, just the following needs attention:

Prose

Lead:

• "She was stricken..." Might be just me, but seems unusual to use stricken; shouldn't it be "struck"?
  • That's what I've always used. I think "struck" would be appropriate if the sentence was "She had been struck", but I'm no expert grammarian.

Design:

• The conversion for idp differs very slightly in this section to what is noted in the infobox as does the crew numbers.
• To be even more pedantic, the range conversions differ as well although I think you just rounded them up in this section compared to the infobox.
• Just to top that bit of 'pedanticness', the order in which the speed conversions appear in the infobox change: on its first usage (in the speed field), the mph appears first, whereas in the range field, the km/h appears first.
  • Should all be fixed.

Service:

• "Ammiraglio di Saint Bon spent the first several years of her career in the 1st Squadron, along with her sister..." Given the subject of the article, me thinks that Ammiraglio di Saint Bon' should be swapped for Emanuele Filiberto. That said, the lead mentions specifically the name of the sistership so it should be worked in here anyway.
  • Fixed.

Italo-Turkish War:

• link 3rd Division?
  • There's nothing to link to, and I don't know enough about the Italian navy to create the articles on their fleet structure.
• "She served alongside her sister and the two..." I think you should just refer to the name of the sister ship here as you will have antecedence for it if you make a tweak as per my previous comment.
  • The rest should all be fixed

World War I:

• close repetition of "primary" in the second sentence of this section.
• Delete the "too" from "...could operate too effectively ..."
• "Instead, Revel decided to implement blockade" should that be "Instead, Revel decided to implement a blockade"?
  • All fixed.

References

• Locations for some references are bracketed.
• Do Beehler and Brasseys have OCLC numbers?
• Gardiner, Robert; Gray, Randal does not appear to be used.
• Check the spelling of Willmot in the footnotes section (one l or two?).
  • Should all be fixed now.

Images

• Appropriate tags/captions used.

Other stuff

• No dab links.
• external links good.
• One duplicate link: torpedo boat.
  • Removed.
• Article stable and appears neutral.

Cheers. Zawed (talk) 10:26, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing the article, Zawed. Parsecboy (talk) 11:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, but still an inconsistency between article and infobox with respect to the crew complement. Also the references still have inconsistent bracketing of their place of publication. Zawed (talk) 23:44, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see the infobox has been fixed, and have also noticed the brackets for place of publication are for journals not books; my bad. Passing as a GA. Zawed (talk) 12:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, yeah, I guess I forgot to let you know the infobox had been fixed, and the journal thing. Parsecboy (talk) 12:21, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]