Talk:SMS Spalato

SMS Spalato 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: August 8, 2017. (Reviewed version).

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

Military history: Maritime / European

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

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:SMS Spalato/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 09:49, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is in good shape. A few comments:

No dabs or duplicate links
categorisation seems sensible
suggest pointing out that the guns were muzzle-loaders if that was the case
- Done
the guns in the body and infobox don't match, they are 9 cm in the body and 87 mm in the infobox, and 7cm in the body and 66 mm in the infobox
- Fixed
suggest linking knots
- It's linked in the design section
linking ship commissioning
- Done
suggest stating what sort of ship Radetzky was
- Good idea
gunnery or artillery school? the terms seem to be used interchangeably, perhaps better to be consistent?
- Done
when the remaining four 47 mm guns are mentioned, worth stating these were the QF ones, not the bow-mounted one
- Good catch
the image licensing needs work, shouldn't it be PD-because?
- Yup, fixed.

That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:59, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. Parsecboy (talk) 12:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is well-written, verifiable using reliable sources, covers the subject well, is neutral and stable, contains no plagiarism, and is illustrated by an appropriately licensed image with an appropriate caption. Passing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:18, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]