Talk:Brazilian monitor Rio Grande/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Skinny87 (talk) 08:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
- 'On 19 February 1868 six Brazilian ironclads, including Rio Grande, sailed past Humaitá at night' - But Rio Grande was a monitor and not an ironclad, surely? Should this be changed to read 'six Brazilian vessels', possibly rewriting to state that it included both ironclads and monitors?
- I'm not inclined to think so as monitors, at least during this period, are a type of ironclad.
- Well, you know better than me about the intricacies, so fair enough.
- I'm not inclined to think so as monitors, at least during this period, are a type of ironclad.
- 'Rio Grande continued upstream with the other undamaged ships and they bombarded Asunción on 24 February.[' - This assumes that at least one vessel was damaged, which the previous sentence makes no mention of. Can this be clarified?
- Done
- Are there any details on how the vessel was boarded by the Paraguyans? Were they attacked by another ship, or attacked by cutters of some sort from shore? Were any casualties taken during the fight onboard?
- Expanded
- Was the rebuilding just for repairs, or were there intentions to upgrade her in any way?
- Unknown, no details provided.
- 'On 19 February 1868 six Brazilian ironclads, including Rio Grande, sailed past Humaitá at night' - But Rio Grande was a monitor and not an ironclad, surely? Should this be changed to read 'six Brazilian vessels', possibly rewriting to state that it included both ironclads and monitors?
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- 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 few questions about her Service history, but otherwise this seems very close to GA standards. Skinny87 (talk) 14:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
- Looks good now, so I'll pass this. Good work! Skinny87 (talk) 20:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC)