Jump to content

Talk:French ironclad Colbert/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk) 22:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

[edit]

I have the following initial comments:

  • there appears to be a mixture of US and British English variation (e.g. "meters" (US), "armor" (US), "armour" (British), "honour" (British));
A little careless cut and pasting.
  • in the lead, the narrative flow might be improved slightly by adding the linking clause "that were" to this sentence: "The French ironclad Colbert was the lead ship of the Colbert-class ironclads that were (my emphasis) built for the French Navy in the 1870s";
Done.
  • in the Design and description section, "... as a improved versions of the ironclad..." (disagreement between "a" and "versions" - singular v. plural);
Fixed
  • in the Design and description section, "...most ironclads of her era she were..." ("were" doesn't agree with "she" - singular v plural). Also it doesn't appear to be clear to what "she" refers here - is that Colbert, the collective Colbert-class or in fact Richelieu?
Fixed
  • in the Propulsion subsection, it might be clearer if it is specifically stated that the ship used both sails and powered motor plant for propulsion. It seems only to be inferred;
Well, she could use either or both.
I think you could maybe make it a little clearer by being explicit about this, but I'll leave it up to you. Its not a major issue in the long run. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the Armament section, the presentation of numerals makes this a little hard to read: "...At some point the ship received 14 to 18 37-millimeter..." (perhaps spell out the quantities, e.g. "...fourteen and eighteen 37-millimeter...";
Spelling them out is much clearer; I usually try do that, but I obviously forgot this time.
  • I suggest wikilinking (if possible) terms like stern, amidships, etc. as not every reader will automatically know what these mean;
Generally I'm only willing to spend the time to link nautical terms when they're not well known like "abaft". A reader can use a online dictionary for bow, stern, etc.
Fair enough. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the Service section, I think that this sentence needs a linking clause to clarify the causal inference that is being made: "While the exact reason for such prolonged construction time is not known, the budget for the French Navy was cut after the Franco-Prussian War of 1870–71 and the French dockyards had not been reformed with working practices more suitable for the industrial age";
I'm not sure what you mean.
  • in the References section, the year range in the Gardiner source should have an endash per WP:DASH;
Done
  • in the References section, if possible could ISSN and or OCLC numbers be added to the de Balincourt, Brassey and Wilson works?
Done
  • in the External links section, I don't think the presentation of "SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN" should in all caps, even if that is the way the work itself presents itself, as the MOS allows us a certain amount of flexibility in adjusting punctuation/presentation to fall in line with general MOS principles. As such, I think it should just be "Scientific American";
Deleted.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I made a couple of subsequent tweaks. Please check that you are happy with them. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They're OK, although I dropped the nevertheless.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Progression

[edit]
  • Version of the article when originally reviewed: [1]
  • Version of the article when review was closed: [2]

Technical review

[edit]
  • no dabs found by the tools.
  • one external link reported as dead: [3]
  • image lacks alt text: although it is not a GA requirement, you might consider adding it.

Criteria

[edit]
  • It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  • All issues dealt with per above.
  • It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  • No issues.
  • It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  • No issues.
  • No issues.
  • It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  • No issues.
  • It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images): c (non-free images have fair use rationales): d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain':
  • No issues.
  • Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:French_ironclad_Colbert/GA1&oldid=397820540"