# Talk:Vettor Pisani-class cruiser

This review is transcluded from Talk:Vettor Pisani-class cruiser/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ceradon (talk · contribs) 17:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

In the vein of you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours, I'll take this on. Full review should be done a day or two. --ceradon  (talk • contribs) 17:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
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: 
Excellent work here. Would be happy to pass.
Passing... --ceradon  (talk • contribs) 16:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Comments
"Single 40-caliber QF Cannone da 120/40 A Modello 1891 gun was" - please correct the linguistic plurality in this sentence (first sentence in the penultimate paragraph). "A single 40-caliber QF Cannone da 120/40 A Modello 1891 gun was" or "Single 40-caliber QF Cannone da 120/40 A Modello 1891 guns were".
"She subsequently became a repair ship in 1916" - Are you talking about Giuseppe Garibaldi or Vettor Pisani? I think the antecedent to the "She" pronoun is the Giuseppe Garibaldi, rather than Vettor Pisani. Could probably say "Vettor Pisani subsequently became".
Robinson 1903 needs a title. Did you intend for the journal parameter to be the title parameter?
If you click on the help link you'll see that the journal parameter is supposed to act as the title, but only a few days ago, these redlinks started popping up incorrectly. I suspect that somebody started messing around with the template and it hasn't been fixed yet. Nothing I can do about anyways.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
No disambiguation links found in the article.
Images are in the public domain and properly tagged.
Thanks for your review; I've fixed everything you identified.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)