Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) 01:24, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: G'day, just a few minor comments/suggestions from me: AustralianRupert (talk) 01:24, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• article seems well written and well referenced (no action required);
• images seem appropriately licensed, although for "File:Italian cruiser Goito.jpg" I suggest adding a year range of "c. 1890 - 1899" instead of "unknown" to the description page per [1]
  • Good idea
• I wonder if there is any information about who her first captain was? If there is nothing recorded, no worries, just curious...
  • Nothing I've seen, no.
• did the ship suffer any casualties during the war? I assume not given the largely support role it seemed to have, but again just curious...
  • Not that I'm aware of.
• inconsistent: "three 37 mm revolving Hotchkiss guns" (in the body) v. "2 × 37 mm Hotchkiss guns" (in the infobox)
  • Fixed, 3 is correct
• "She was completed on 16 February 1888, the first member of her class to enter service", perhaps add the word "commissioned" here somewhere?
  • Added, good idea
• is there an OCLC number for the Clarke and Thursfield work?
  • Added
• slightly inconsistent presentation: compare the volume presentation of the 1898 Garbett to the 1899 Garbett, and the missing full stop after the close bracket...I had a look at this and actually couldn't work out what was doing it. The template looks the same to me...
  • I think the bolding issue is that the template turns it off if the numerals get too long - why it does that, I don't really know. And for some reason, that seems to be tied to the period as well - if you shorten the numeral in the second version, it turns on the bold and and removes the period. I think it's worth a question on the template talk page. Parsecboy (talk) 13:02, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, that is the cite template working as designed. I'm not saying it is a good design. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:39, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for clearing that up, I thought I was going bonkers. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have modified the sandbox code of the citation module to add a period before all volume numbers, not just ones longer than four characters. The citation module is typically updated from the sandbox about once every month or two, so if nobody objects to this change, you'll see some added consistency in this article in the near future. As for the bold/not bold volume numbers, this is an historical practice in the citation template. It is documented in the templates' documentation. If you think this is not a good practice, please start a discussion at Help talk:Citation Style 1. I'm pretty sure that it has come up before, so if you have time on your hands, you could check the archives for that talk page first. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:51, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

  a (references): 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.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

• It is stable.

  No edit wars etc.:

• It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

  a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images): c (non-free images have fair use rationales): d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain:

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail: