# Talk:Italian cruiser Marco Polo

This review is transcluded from Talk:Italian cruiser Marco Polo/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Caponer (talk · contribs) 22:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Sturmvogel 66, I will complete a thorough and comprehensive review of this article within the next 48 hours. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns in the meantime. Thanks! -- Caponer (talk) 22:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Ping!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
Sturmvogel 66, I apologize for the delay, but I have completed my thorough review and re-review of your article, and I find that it easily meets all the criteria for passage to Good Article status. Prior its passage, I do have some comments and questions that must first be addressed. Again, great job on this article. -- Caponer (talk) 23:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

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): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Lede

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lede of this article adequately defines the cruiser, establishes the necessary context for the cruiser, and explains why the cruiser is notable.
I suggest adding in more content from the "Design and description" section, perhaps briefly mentioning the make up of the cruiser's armament, or mention the ship's complement.
The Italian postcard of the Italian cruiser Marco Polo is released into the public domain and is therefore acceptable for use here.
The template is beautifully formatted and its content is soured in the references listed below.
The lede is well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no other comments or questions for this section.
Design and description

The image of the right elevation and deck plan drawing from Brassey's Naval Annual 1902 is released into the public domain and is acceptable for use here.
This section is well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no comments or questions for this section.
Construction and career

I'm assuming the ship was intended to serve as a Far East ship when it was named Marco Polo. Do any of the sources highlight a connection between the two?
There were weren't any Italian colonies other than in Africa, so no connection.
The Italo-Turkish War of 1911–12 can stand to be wiki-linked again since this is the first mention within the prose, but it is fine as is.
This section is well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.
Many thanks for your review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Sturmvogel 66, thank you for your timely response. Upon my re-review, everything looks in order here and I applaud you for crafting yet another Good Article! Congratulations and thank you again. -- Caponer (talk) 12:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the SFN format works better for users.  Personally, I am not interested in arguing about it or the procedures.  Compare this to current iteration. I will move on, but think the knowing choice should be duly recorded. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)