Talk:French ironclad Richelieu/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Progression

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

Technical review

• a (Disambiguations): b Linkrot c Alt text

• no dabs found by the tools;
• ext links work;
• image lacks alt text: you might consider adding it in, but it is not a GA requirement (suggestion only).

Criteria

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

• I've made a few copy edits, but otherwise looks fine to me. Please check that you agree with my edits;

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

• No issues, looks fine to me for GA, although for higher it might need to have a slightly broader reference base.

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

• would it be possible to add a clause explaining what being cut down to a schooner rig entailed?

• I'm not entirely sure other than the types of sails that she carried were changed.

• do we know why the ship caught fire?

• Unfortunately, no.

• would it be possible to add something (even a small sentence) about what the ship did while assigned to the Mediteranean Squadron between 1881 and 1885?

• Done, although I've only got sporadic info on individual years.

• what did being the flagship for the Reserve Squadron entail? Does that mean she was active, or remained in port between 1892 and 1900?

• Done, see above.

• do you know how far the ship drifted? It might be interesting to specify this if it is know;

• Unknown.

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

• 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:

• Just a couple of minor points that I think need to be addressed, but otherwise looks fine to me. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• Looks good, well done. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)