# Talk:Brazilian ironclad Tamandaré

Surely the article should be names after the ship? The ship was not called "Brazilian ironclad Tamandaré" according to this. The QE2 article is not called "British Cruiseship QE2". I think this is Tamandare (ship). Victuallers (talk) 16:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

No, see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships).--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Brazilian ironclad Tamandaré/GA1. 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)
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.
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
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.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Curious, that.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
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): 

Overall:
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)