Talk:French ironclad Couronne

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 21:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi! I'll review this article for GA status. Full comments up shortly... Dana boomer (talk) 21:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   • Design and description, "and Couronne was less wet as well." Huh? I've read a lot of ship articles over the last few years, but I'm stumped by this sentence :)

   • The Gloires were very wet ships. Is the problem the term "wet" or the comparison?

   • The term "wet". It's not one I've seen before, used like this, and I really don't know what it means. Dana boomer (talk) 14:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

   • Rephrased.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

   • What was she used for the in the 10 years between the Franco-Prussian War and her 1881 reconstruction?

   • I have almost no information about that time in her career. I've added that she was assigned to the Mediterranean Squadron in 1876, but that's literally all I know other than a few of her captains' names.

   • Construction and service, "Her crew was increased to 1200 officers and enlisted men." It was increased to this from what?

   • See the last sentence of the first para of the design section.

   • Certainly a great deal of the 1,200 officers and men were those being trained, and not actual crewmen in the sense of engine room personnel, cooks, etc., no?

Parsecboy (talk) 17:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

1. • Most likely; my source says that she "carried 1,200 men", so I've clarified things.

   • Did anything interesting happen to her during World War I? I know that she was just a barracks ship at that point, but...

   • So far as I know, nothing. I think that she was in Toulon at that time, but even that is just speculation.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • I don't see that "de Balincourt, Captain...Part 1" is used for any in-line notes. Is there anything useful in it? If not, should it be removed?

   • Nice inadvertent catch. That source should have been used to cover the ship's rigging, but I forgot to add it until you mentioned it.

   • Is "Gille, Eric" in French? If so, it should specify this in the Bibliography.

   • Done.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   A couple of prose niggles, a couple of reference questions and a couple of places where I'd like to see some expansion if the sources allow it. Overall a nice little article, though. Dana boomer (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I've resolved most of these, but I need clarification as to what the problem is about the ship being less wet than her predecessors. Thanks for the thorough review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:53, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Drive-by comment - it would be worthwhile to explain that the reason Couronne did not see action during the Franco-Prussian War was because the 3 Prussian armored frigates were plagued by engine problems and were not operational for most of the war. Details and citations are in the relevant articles (for instance, SMS Friedrich Carl (1867)). Parsecboy (talk) 17:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Good idea and I've added the two German sorties before and after the French were there.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Looks good. I don't see that you've yet added the info on the Prussian ships, but I don't think I need to wait for that WRT the "broadness" criteria for GA. I hope you will still add it, as it would be good context for the article, but I am going to pass the article to GA now. Dana boomer (talk) 20:46, 16 January 2014 (UTC)