Talk:Italian ironclad Re di Portogallo

Italian ironclad Re di Portogallo 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: February 16, 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 articles

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 articles

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 08:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will review, comments to follow. Zawed (talk) 08:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only a few issues that need attention, there were a couple of typos that I fixed myself:

infobox; there is a difference in the displacements recited here and in the text. Also a difference in the number of boilers, plus a very small difference in draft.
- Fixed displacement and boilers, but draft is the same.
first paragraph of the service history; it is very jarring how it moves from the completion of the ship to the declaration of war. Suggest splitting the paragraph into two at this point.
- I'm not really a fan of short paragraphs - see if what I added makes it a smoother transition.
link Adriatic?
- Done
final sentence - there seems to be an issue with the Italia-class wikilink - an extra s - should that also include ironclad?
- Nope, there should have been an "e" there.
references: missing Silverstone (see note 2)
- Added, good catch. Parsecboy (talk) 20:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, this article reads well, is fully cited and neutral in tone, and has reasonable coverage of the subject. The tags on the images appear appropriate. That's it for me, I will check back in a few days. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 08:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, passing as GA. Zawed (talk) 08:47, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]