Talk:Brazilian ironclad Rio de Janeiro

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Brazilian ironclad Rio de Janeiro 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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
November 23, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on September 14, 2010.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the Brazilian ironclad Rio de Janeiro struck two mines on 2 September 1866, during the War of the Triple Alliance, and sank instantly with the loss of 53 of her crew?

Military history: Maritime / South America

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
	South American military history task force

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:Brazilian ironclad Rio de Janeiro/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: —Ed!^(talk) 03:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)

It is reasonably well written:
Comments
1. The "Design and description" section mentions "Barosso." Was this a copying error? If not please specify.
  1. Yes, fixed.
2. Since the design of the ship turns out to be the majority of the info available, I would say add a sentence or two about it to the lead.
  1. I added one sentence about her construction and design. What else would you suggest?
3. Is there any more info on the ship's service history? The current narrative seems to cover its launch and sinking, with little in between. There should be some degree of information, however vague, to cover the majority of its career (even just saying it is not known to have engaged in any notable battles) for us to make sure all our bases are covered for this one.
  1. Her active service life was from May to September. She didn't do anything of significance between that time that hasn't already been mentioned.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable:
Pass Everything's cited.
It is broad in its coverage:
Pass since the ship existed only briefly the article is understandably short.
It follows the neutral point of view policy:
Pass No problems there.
It is stable:
Pass No problems there.
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:
Pass the Infobox is there, and the lack of images is also understandable.
Overall:
On Hold for just a few small comments. Overall it's one of our shorter nominations but comprehensive of the topic nonetheless. —Ed!^(talk) 04:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That'll do then. Passing GA nom. —Ed!^(talk) 19:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apa River

When she struck the mine it can't have been in the Apa River -- not the one in the Mato Grosso anyway -- because that's nowhere near Curuzú, and anyway was inaccessible to the Brazilian Navy until after the Passage of Humaitá. It may be that your source Graz says so, but that doesn't validate a geographical impossibility. In a Good Article, this really needs attention! Thanks.Ttocserp 10:15, 10 May 2016 (UTC)