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
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shipwrecks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of shipwreck-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ShipwrecksWikipedia:WikiProject ShipwrecksTemplate:WikiProject ShipwrecksShipwreck articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Might it be wise to include the location of the wreck in lat/long? I note the BBC News is carrying images and videos which appear to have a numeric East and North measurements, but converting them out is the question... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7898890.stm78.32.62.65 (talk) 09:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
took me while to work out how to convert using coordinates in the source but have done so and added to article, Tom B (talk) 15:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Lack of dates of laying down always annoys me. Here is what I have so far:
Breyer. Battleships and Battle Cruisers. p. 418. says "10.1.08".
Couhat. French Warships of World War I. p. 25. says "2.06".
Gardiner. Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships, 1906-1921. p. 196. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) says "2.06".
Preston. Battleships of World War I. p. 45. says "February 1908".
The contemporary Bulletin de l'Association technique maritime. p. 32. says "Mai 1908".
The most damning piece of evidence against a 1906 laying down is a report from the 1909 edition of the Journal of the American Society of Naval Engineers p. 677 which says the slip Danton was built on wasn't even ready until 1908. C'est la vie. --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 18:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Quite a commendable collection of sources you've got! I'd say write 1906, 1908, or 1906/08 (wherever you think the evidence leans) in the infobox and then add all the info you've got right above here in a footnote. Joshdboz (talk) 19:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
As far as I know, "rather" isn't archaic or colloquial - it should be ok.
The comma looks good, but the link was to the wrong ship - another editor caught it though so it's good. Thanks for reviewing this article as well :) Parsecboy (talk) 14:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
ok, all checks out per GA criteria. Pass! MathewTownsend (talk) 16:25, 8 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
.jpg)
