Talk:Italian ironclad Ancona

Italian ironclad Ancona 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: February 27, 2016. (Reviewed version).

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)

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

Photo

here. Parsecboy (talk) 18:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Wilhelmina Will (talk · contribs) 04:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA criteria

Well-written:

After the comment/s below were seen to, this article checks out in terms of grammar, as well as layout as per MOS policies. Herein dwells the greatest dictionary ever composed! (talk) 23:35, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; 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

Verifiable with no original research:

The article uses a decent quantity of reputable sources, and all information included is verifiable by virtue of these sources. Herein dwells the greatest dictionary ever composed! (talk) 23:33, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

(b) 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)

(c) it contains no original research

Broad in its coverage:

Looks like the article covers all relevant and verifiable aspects of its topic, in decent detail. Herein dwells the greatest dictionary ever composed! (talk) 11:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

The article maintains an unbiased approach to its subject, all throughout. Herein dwells the greatest dictionary ever composed! (talk) 11:25, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

The revision history shows that since the article's creation, it has not been the subject of any editing disputes. Herein dwells the greatest dictionary ever composed! (talk) 11:04, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

All images are public domain, so there's no risk of copyright violation in their usage here. All of them illustrate relevant concepts to the article's topic. Herein dwells the greatest dictionary ever composed! (talk) 10:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

@Wilhelmina Will: - I think you might have forgotten about this GAN (and these two). Parsecboy (talk) 13:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're right; I should get on with these. I just need to do a few other things, offline and on, and then I'll see to this very one. Herein dwells the greatest dictionary ever composed! (talk) 10:48, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

In Service history, Admiral Carlo Pellion di Persano is referred to by his full name in both the first paragraph and the second paragraph. Oughtn't his second mentioning to be reduced to his surname, and his position as the commander of the Italian fleet to be mentioned only in the first paragraph?
- Fixed, good catch.
In Design, it mentions that "Her engine produced a top speed of 13.74 knots (25.45 km/h; 15.81 mph) from 2,548 indicated horsepower (1,900 kW), making her the fastest member of her class." While I understand that the entire paragraph that line comes from is meant to be verified by citation 1, if the cite were also provided right after this line, I think it could qualify as a hook for DYK, upon this article's GA promotion. Other than these two points, everything checks out. Herein dwells the greatest dictionary ever composed! (talk) 11:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not all that concerned with DYK, to be honest - I haven't been particularly thrilled with interactions I've had there in the past. Thanks though. Parsecboy (talk) 12:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Understood; no big deal. I should be wrapping this up now, however; mustn't let myself be sidetracked any longer... Herein dwells the greatest dictionary ever composed! (talk) 23:31, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say this article is "Good" to go. Congratulations! Herein dwells the greatest dictionary ever composed! (talk) 23:35, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error and warning messages and other CE.

Parsecboy, I am not edit-warring. I simply redid changes I thought were inadvertantly reverted.

My primary purpose for editing this article was to change code that was generating CS1 error and warning messages. I also edit to conform to Wikipedia "standards" which are continually changing.

"Short, wide images sometimes benefit from upright factors greater than 1.0." per Help:Pictures.
"For instance, upright=1.5 makes the image larger, which is useful for maps or schematics that need to be larger to be readable." per Wikipedia:Extended image syntax or WP:PICSIZE.
I did not know that author-page was acceptable for short citations. I though publication date was also desired.

I will continue to change wikitext that generates error and warning messages.User-duck (talk) 17:57, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The plan and profile image has no real text that needs to be legible - just a reference to the class, which is accomplished by the caption. You applied the larger sizing to a normal image at Italian ship Affondatore (and indicated you'd like to do it to the photo here). If you think the default image size should be greater than the 220px default, you can change what size thumbnails are display in your preferences. Bear in mind that other editors do have preferences set, so changing the default display overrides their preferences.

I have been using this citation format for 15+ years, and in 80-some-odd Featured Articles (and I know others with similar content production use it as well). Parsecboy (talk) 10:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]