Talk:Brazilian ironclad Tamandaré/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Skinny87 (talk) 09:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
- Thinking about it, the lede could probably stand to be a bit larger; either a few more sentences or another paragraph.
- Expanded a little, the problem is that much of her activities were very repetitious and require a bit too much explanation to work in the lede.
- 'The ship participated in the Passagem de Humaitá in February 1868 and provided fire support for the army for the rest of the war.' - 'Brazilian army'
- Fixed, but I moved it earlier in the para.
- 'They repeated the operation again on 9 September.' - Incorrect date, and by this do you mean they engaged the same target, or a new one in the same location?
- Fixed
- 'Tamandaré and Alagoas destroyed the artillery batteries at Timbó on 23 March 1869' - What artillery batteries? Either give more context to this operation to explain why/if they are significant, or just give the number of batteries targeted.
- Explained when they first bombarded it.
- Thinking about it, the lede could probably stand to be a bit larger; either a few more sentences or another paragraph.
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- The 'Service' section could do with a sentence or two for context about the conflict the Tamandare was entering, ie why she was bombarding Paraguyan positions and so forth.
- Done
- The 'Service' section could do with a sentence or two for context about the conflict the Tamandare was entering, ie why she was bombarding Paraguyan positions and so forth.
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- The cost of the ironclad is present in the infobox, but not in the article, which is an odd ommission.
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Curious, that.
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
A short article, but it seems quite comprehensive. The Service history is a little choppy, and ought to be massaged by a copy-editor if heading for anything further up the chain than GA, but it will suffice for GA. Make a few changes, and this will be good to pass. Skinny87 (talk) 09:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review. I'm not likely to send any of these short articles to ACR, but I'll keep your suggestion in mind.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)