Talk:Alma-class ironclad

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Skinny87 (talk) 08:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   'Three others patrolled the North Sea and the Atlantic while the last ship was enroute to Japan when the war began and blockaded two small Prussian ships in a Japanese harbor' - Comma needed after Atlantic

   Agreed.

   'while another helped to intimidate the Vietnamese Government into accepting a French protectorate' - This is a little awkward and I would suggest the phrase 'intimidate the Vietnamese Government into accepting status as a French protectorate'

   Yes, much better phrasing.

   'Montcalm, Atalante, and Reine Blanche cruised the North Sea and the former later watched a Prussian corvette in Portuguese waters' - Does 'the former' mean both vessels, or just one of them? Did they do anything to the corvette? You also need a comma after 'North Sea'.

   Clarified. No, the corvette remained in Portuguese territorial water for the duration. Disagree about the comma.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   'This design was changed to substitute four barbettes for the upper battery,' - What led to the design being changed?

   Unspecified in my sources, but my guess would be weight problems.

   Some details on the range and firepower of the vessel's weapons would be appreciated, especially if a reader were to try and compare this with another contemporary vessel.

   Couldn't find anything of significance the first time I looked. I'll try a couple of other sources.

1. Data for the 194 mm Mle 1870 gun has been located.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

   'On 3 July 1877[6] Thétis rammed Reine Blanche who had to be run ashore to prevent her from sinking.' - Was this an accident, or somehow intentional? Clarification would be nice.

   No further details, although I'd think that it was an accident. They are in the same navy, after all.

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

5. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

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

6. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

A brief but seemingly comprehensive little article. A few changes and some armament details, and it'll be good to go. Skinny87 (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Alright, let me know when you've searched, results or no, and I'll pass the article. Skinny87 (talk) 20:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks good, so I'll be passing now. Skinny87 (talk) 13:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)