Talk:Italian ironclad Terribile/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: ErrantX (talk · contribs) 11:00, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
I'll take this:
- I made some ce, please check them
- All seem fine to me.
- the first member of her class to begin construction; was there a reason for this?
- Neither Gardiner or Ordovini say - it seems odd that the class took the name of the second ship. There are differences in class naming between choosing the first ship launched, or the first ship to be commissioned, but Terribile was first on all counts. It might have had to do with the design having been reworked - Formidabile might have actually been laid down earlier, before the design was changed, and that work had to be scrapped, but that's a wild guess. Parsecboy (talk) 11:25, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- Shame! It is unusual. Nevertheless, looks like GA material to me. --Errant (chat!) 20:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- Neither Gardiner or Ordovini say - it seems odd that the class took the name of the second ship. There are differences in class naming between choosing the first ship launched, or the first ship to be commissioned, but Terribile was first on all counts. It might have had to do with the design having been reworked - Formidabile might have actually been laid down earlier, before the design was changed, and that work had to be scrapped, but that's a wild guess. Parsecboy (talk) 11:25, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Other than that not much I can fault with it... images check out, prose is good. Personally speaking I'd maybe say there was a lot of prose about the battle that isn't tightly relevant to the ship (and so could be trimmed?) but that's a somewhat subjective POV. Good work. --Errant (chat!) 11:00, 31 January 2016 (UTC)