Talk:Brazilian ironclad Tamandaré/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Skinny87 (talk) 09:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) 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.
 * 1) 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
 * 1) 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.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Curious, that.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) 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)