Talk:Colbert-class ironclad/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Parsecboy (talk · contribs) 13:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Probably worth including Stephen Roberts as the editor to Ropp's book - it would have remained a dissertation without him.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   If the name of the gun used centimeters, why are they described with millimeters in the prose?

   Because the 27 cm gun wasn't really 27 cm, but rather 27.4 cm.

   Do you know Garnault's first name? Presumably he should have an article at some point (and he may well have one on fr.wiki - I know the Germans have a very handy List of German admirals, maybe the French have something similar?)

   Excellent idea. And they do have a brief article on him.

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, where possible and appropriate.

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

   What's the source for File:Canon de 27 cm modèle 1870 IMG 7015.JPG? I think Rama is still around so you should be able to ask him.

   Queried, but the magazine may well not have the original publication info.

   @Sturmvogel 66: - any updates?

   From his talk page: These engravings are illustrations from a 19th Century reference book, Aide-Mémoire d'artillerie navale. The various individual engravings reproduced in Neptunia were obtained from copies of the Aide-Mémoire in personnal collections, or from the SHD Marine (the Historical services of the National Navy), but I do not think that this is very relevant. You can find various editions of these books from Gallica [1] or Google books[2]. Most other images in this series are from the same source; exceptions are the 24cm guns model 1864 and 1879 (Compilation du Commandant de Balincourt), the mountings of the 80-pounder howitzer and the open turrent of Suffren (Mémorial de l'artillerie navale) and the gun turrent of Cerbère (Cours de Construction navale).--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

   Here's the Worldcat entry for the journal - if you can track down the specific year that would be helpful. And the image probably needs the PD-1923 tag too. Parsecboy (talk) 12:13, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

   Downloaded every edition available on Gallica and Google Books and couldn't find the image.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:32, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

   Fair enough - the journal was only published until 1890 so even without the specific edition we know it was pre-1923. I think we're ready enough for promotion. Parsecboy (talk) 12:39, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Just a few niggles here and there. Parsecboy (talk) 13:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• Question : From what source are we getting 'Henri' Garnault's first name from? His first name is not mentioned in the source used to cite this. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:13, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • We don't need a source for his first name - "Vice Admiral Garnault" is sufficient to identify him as Henri - it's a WP:BLUE situation. Parsecboy (talk) 18:45, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Everyone knows the sky is blue and the corresponding essay pertains to (very) common knowledge. Hardly anyone knows who Admiral Garnault was, much less his first name. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Right, but the source does provide "Vice Admiral Garnault", which is sufficient to connect him to his first name. He had no brother running around at the same time with the same rank, so it's unambiguous who the source is referring to. Parsecboy (talk) 19:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

You have a point, but in terms of justifying the foregoing of citations it's sort of an opinion. If there's a source for the first name we should provide it, per policy -- esp if someone contests it, which I won't after this. But after all, why shouldn't we provide the source if there is one? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:15, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, no, policy only requires that it be verifiable, not that it necessarily be verified. And frankly, the idea that we need a second source for a first name when the last name and the rank is given in the first source is absurd. Parsecboy (talk) 18:22, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

GARNAULT (Henri Jules Noël) had a son; late deceased frigate captain GARNAULT Henri Théodore Eugène (srce http://gw.geneanet.org). Larousse (Grand Larousse encyclopédique), Volume 5) ed. 1960 confirms Henri Jules Noël, "amiral français (La Rochelle 1820 -Toulon 1906). Pendant la campagne de Tunisie (1881), il dirigea la flotte qui occupa Bizerte, et s'empara de Sfax, de Gabès et de l'île de Djerba." Note this, after the Google search entry; book content not consultable. --Askedonty (talk) 21:31, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

No one is going to confuse the father who was active in the 1880s with the son. Anyone who is enough of a specialist on the history of the French Navy (i.e., the only people who will even know of the father, let alone the son) will obviously know the difference. And everyone else will have no clue the who the father is, let alone that his son even existed or served in the Navy. Parsecboy (talk) 18:22, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I did not bring the son forward because of a risk of confusion with the father, quite the contrary. But if it exists after all, what about a smarter Henri Garnault red link ? Henri Garnault is not such a celebrity that his name should be known to all, without his admiral ranking associated. --Askedonty (talk) 14:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I understand. I don't know that we need to include his middle names in the red link, since there isn't already a Henri Garnault article - if there are other individuals by that name who warrant an article, we can add his middle names at that point. But in general, the more concise name is better if there are no competing claims for the shorter title. Parsecboy (talk) 15:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

The concise rule is an absolute necessity where contemporary people come into question. It works fine with notable people from the past too, when the article displays their full titles and identifiers in its introduction. It is sometimes a little bit shocking however of reading about them as "first name, last name" when we're accustomed to otherwise. I wouldn't have myself questioned the matter in the present case yet I do not see the need for a second source completely absurd. The only source I found where Garnault was called short "Henri Garnault" was when he was still a frigate captain. His son Henri, a frigate captain, died in 1891, so there remains the possibility of a confusion. If you keep the text to "Admiral Garnault" you leave the reader free of their own questions and inquiries. "Garnault" or "Admiral Garnault" then in all legitimacy links to "Henri Garnault", what's going on from there is, behind the scene. Again, I would not have questioned this present case myself, however, the current usage that we are making of first names is very different from what was the practice in the past. As a consequence, when you're coming out to the surface from a lenghty travel through an unending row of dusty history books, you can sometimes find yourself at a loss face to the sharp blatant rudeness of the contemporary sociological classification. Plenty of T.V. series that do refer to that subject. --Askedonty (talk) 19:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

So you want to refer to him with the full majesty of all of his middle names? I would disagree. English-language sources typically shorten French names to just a first and last name. I don't really care if French-speakers are annoyed by this habit; they can read the French-language sources. I'm more concerned about English-speakers being familiar with the name and saving myself the labor of having to pipe a link unnecessarily or add a disambiguation page. In this particular case, the admiral is little enough known that I see no reason to do any of that, especially since his son is likely non-notable.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC)