# Talk:Italian cruiser San Marco

PROBLEMS WITH THIS PAGE
This page does not adopt Wikipedia's style of writing or tone. Cowhen1966 (talk) 00:51, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Could you please explain what you mean?  What's the problem with the style of writing or tone here?  Howicus (Did I mess up?) 01:07, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
The template is self explanatory! RegardsCowhen1966 (talk) 01:12, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Italian cruiser San Marco/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Caponer (talk · contribs) 20:37, 5 March 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) 20:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
Sturmvogel 66, I have completed a thorough and comprehensive review and re-review of this article, and I find that it easily meets all the criteria for passage to Good Article status. Before its passage, I do have some comments and questions that must first be addressed. As always, thank you for your continued phenomenal work. -- Caponer (talk) 20:47, 5 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.
As always, I merely 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. Again, I know this isn't usually something you do, but it would make the lede a bit more comprehensive of all the article's sections and subsections. Also, it would be appropriate to mention in the lede that San Marco was given the first steam turbines fitted in a large Italian ship and she was the first turbine-powered ship in any navy to have four propeller shafts, the first with a gyroscopic compass, the first with antiroll tanks, and the first not to use wood in any way. These firsts are very much notable, and should be fitted to a "bottom line up front" for the lede.
The image of San Marco, 18 August 1910 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.
It's of course not necessary to wiki-link World War I, but since Italo-Turkish War is wiki-linked, it also wouldn't hurt to wiki-link WW1.
The lede is otherwise 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

Per WP:CITEDENSE, internal citations are usually reserved for the end of a sentence, even though I understand your rationale for placing an internal citation after a comma within a sentence. This isn't a deal breaker, but something to be mindful of. As this is a suggestion, please disregard if you disagree with moving the citations.
This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no other comments or questions for this section.
Construction and career

Could it be noted that Castellammare di Stabia is situated on the Bay of Naples or near Naples, to provide geospatial context?
The image of San Marco at Brindisi on 13 December 1916 is released into the public domain and is therefore acceptable for use here.
I suggest mentioning that Durazzo is known as present-day Durrës.
Consider adding a comma after "On 1 October" and "On 16 March 1924" as this was done with "On 21 September 1923" earlier in that paragraph.
If Bay of Naples is wiki-linked for the mention of Castellammare di Stabia, then remember to de-link it in the final paragraph.
This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no other comments or questions for this section.
I've only added the first two "firsts" to the lede as they were the most important innovations and have made the other changes that you recommended. Thanks for your review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Sturmvogel 66, thank you for addressing my comments and concerns in such a timely manner. I hereby pass this article to Good Article status. Congratulations on yet another job well done! -- Caponer (talk) 12:04, 6 March 2015 (UTC)