Talk:Brazilian ironclad Rio de Janeiro/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: —Ed!^(talk) 03:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)

It is reasonably well written:
Comments
1. The "Design and description" section mentions "Barosso." Was this a copying error? If not please specify.
  1. Yes, fixed.
2. Since the design of the ship turns out to be the majority of the info available, I would say add a sentence or two about it to the lead.
  1. I added one sentence about her construction and design. What else would you suggest?
3. Is there any more info on the ship's service history? The current narrative seems to cover its launch and sinking, with little in between. There should be some degree of information, however vague, to cover the majority of its career (even just saying it is not known to have engaged in any notable battles) for us to make sure all our bases are covered for this one.
  1. Her active service life was from May to September. She didn't do anything of significance between that time that hasn't already been mentioned.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable:
Pass Everything's cited.
It is broad in its coverage:
Pass since the ship existed only briefly the article is understandably short.
It follows the neutral point of view policy:
Pass No problems there.
It is stable:
Pass No problems there.
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:
Pass the Infobox is there, and the lack of images is also understandable.
Overall:
On Hold for just a few small comments. Overall it's one of our shorter nominations but comprehensive of the topic nonetheless. —Ed!^(talk) 04:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That'll do then. Passing GA nom. —Ed!^(talk) 19:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]