Talk:Italian ironclad Messina

Italian ironclad Messina has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: March 3, 2016. (Reviewed version).

Military history: Maritime / European / Italian

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	European military history task force
	Italian military history task force (c. 500–present)

Ships

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Italian ironclad Messina/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 04:55, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will do this one as well. Zawed (talk) 04:55, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Repeated use of "...she was..."
- Fixed, as in the other article.

Design/Infobox

Short/Long tons conversion missing in the infobox for normal displacement.
- It's there
The link to propulsion is referred to as plural in the infobox but ship only has one engine.
- Fixed
Inconsistency in number of boilers.
- Fixed

Service history

"Principe di Carignano member of her class..." > "Her sister ship Principe di Carignano was the only member of her class"?
- Fixed
"Italia-classs" > "Italia-classes"?
- You'd have thought I'd have caught that when I was writing the articles.

References

Sondhaus (2001) not used. Also, this means no need for (1994) to differentiate the two Sondhaus refs.
- Good point.

Although short, this article reads well, is fully cited and neutral in tone. Despite its brevity, it has reasonable coverage of the subject which had a limited career. The tags on the images appear appropriate. I will check back on progress in a few days. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 05:06, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changes look good, passing as GA. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 05:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]