Talk:Italian ironclad Re d'Italia

Italian ironclad Re d'Italia 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

A safe has been found on the shipwreck: https://www.total-croatia-news.com/lifestyle/30661-divers-find-safe-of-ancient-ship-re-d-italia https://archaeologynewsnetwork.blogspot.com/2018/08/divers-find-mysterious-safe-of-19th.html http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2018-08/28/c_137425870.htm I would try to update the page, but the citation and referencing in Wikipedia has become so complex I do not understand it, (i.e, what is GA Review mean?). Paul — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Rako (talk • contribs) 15:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 08:27, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Might as well review this one as well since I've just done the sister ship. Zawed (talk) 08:27, 11 February 2016 (UTC) Comments as follows:[reply]

as with the sister ship article, some inconsistencies between the infobox and text; there are a number of characteristics including displacement, no. boilers, range, and armament among others.
- Seems I forgot to correct the infobox when I rewrote the article. Should all be correct now.
the bulkheads, although mentioned in the infobox, are not discussed in the text. It may need a cite.
- Dunno where that came from, it's not mentioned in Conway's
suggest breaking the 1st paragraph of the service history section into two, as per the comment on the GA review for the sister ship.
- See if what I added makes it a smoother transition.
link Adriatic?
- Done
First paragraph of the Battle of Lissa section; Persano mentioned twice in the final sentence, suggest second usage be replaced with he.
- Good idea
"Persano decided to leave his flagship"; instead of his flagship, consider using Re d'Italia just to reinforce to the reader which ship he was originally (I know it is mentioned previously, but I had to go back and doublecheck.
- Good point
references: missing Sondhaus (see notes 4 and 7). Also Ordovini is listed but not actually cited.
- Added Sondhaus and moved Ordovini to a further reading section. Thanks for reviewing both of these articles. Parsecboy (talk) 20:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, other than the issues identified above, 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) 08:46, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, passing as GA. Zawed (talk) 08:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]