Talk:Chilean battleship Capitán Prat/GA1
Latest comment: 12 years ago by Starstriker7 in topic GA Review
GA Review
editGA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Starstriker7 (talk · contribs) 06:18, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
I'll do this review. --Starstriker7(Talk) 06:18, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Criterion 1
edit- The Capitán Prat was the first battleship ever to utilize electricity. This landmark should be mentioned in the lead.
- You use the word "attempt" three times in one sentence in the lead. Can you vary the wording?
- Can you find a wikilink to the law passed by the National Congress of Chile?
- No such luck, unfornately; the South American navies don't appear to be as well-documented on Wikipedia as the European and US navies.
- You don't mention the aborted Argentine arms race in the Service history section. Add this information.
- Can you find a wikilink to the treaty passed between Chile and Argentina?
- It should already be in the article.
Criterion 2
edit- A major reason why the ship did not explode was because, according to the reference, the hinged lid of the Canet pattern powder case was not properly fastened. Some mention of this should be made.
Overall comments
editThis seems like quite a break from the German warships I normally see you doing. :)
At a first look, criteria 6 (images); 4 (neutrality); and 3 (coverage) are all set to go. Criterion 5 (stability) also seems like a go at the moment, despite the whole "battleship" title issue in January. I'll check the first two criteria in a bit. --Starstriker7(Talk) 17:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- I've evaluated the first two criteria. I am now putting this article on hold. --Starstriker7(Talk) 04:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for reviewing the article - everything I didn't address specifically above should be taken care of. Parsecboy (talk) 12:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- You are welcome. It looks like you are all set. I will pass the article momentarily. --Starstriker7(Talk) 16:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for reviewing the article - everything I didn't address specifically above should be taken care of. Parsecboy (talk) 12:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)