Talk:French aircraft carrier Arromanches

French aircraft carrier Arromanches was a Warfare good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 18, 2008	Good article nominee	Not listed

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

France Low‑importance

	France portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Aviation / Maritime / British / European / French / World War II / Cold War

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 has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	Maritime warfare task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	French military history task force
	World War II task force
	Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 02:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA-On Hold

I have put this article On Hold for a few reasons.

The first is quite simple-it is still under construction. I would personally wait until the article was fully constructed before putting it up for GA.
Done
Secondly, I think that the lead could probably be expanded.
Where and how could I do this?
Finally, this is not necessary, but I think that having a few more different references would help.
Doing... Hard to find though...

Fix these, and it will be passed in an instant. Cheers, ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}_{Review Me!} 03:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is the introduction to the article. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}_{Review Me!} 01:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dreamy, for #2, the lead summarizes the article, and I feel this lead doesn't give a summary of everything in this article. Make it concise, but make it comprehensive. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 01:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, there are a far number of extremely short paragraphs, and the article has very little prose - I personally would fail this, but GA standards vary, and Redmarkviolinist can pass it if he wants. It can be argued that this meets the criteria. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 01:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, he is right. I am going to decide on this one depending on the quality of the work done on it. Cheers, ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}_{Review Me!} 03:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done Dreamafter (talk) 21:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no it isn't. And as Skinny87 pointed out on my talk page, this article has been on the GAN list for over a month. All the paragraphs are extremely short, as is the prose, and the references could be formatted correctly and there could definately be more of them. If you have any further questions, post them on my talk page. Cheers, ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}_{Review Me!} 16:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AA armament

Admittedly, I don't have any sources, but I think it is highly unlikely that the ship should have received the outdated 3-pdr in 1945. Perhaps the main authors could double-check? Regards --84.177.22.11 (talk) 16:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC) (de:Benutzer:Marinebanker)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on French aircraft carrier Arromanches (R95). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]