Talk:French battleship Saint Louis/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 00:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• I'll review this soon. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The article over all is fine. I just have a few suggestions:

• "Saint Louis did not find a buyer, however, until 1933." - maybe make clear in the lede that she was sold for scrap. - that way it clearly ends her existence.
  • Good idea.
• just curious about why she was frequently chosen as the flagship. "the lead ship in a fleet of vessels, typically the first, largest, fastest, most heavily armed, or, in terms of media coverage, best known." - was this the case for her?
  • I wish I knew, nothing in my sources suggests why.
• would suggest linking aft, since other ship parts are linked. Is the reason not to do so the merge discussion?
  • Done.
• maybe clarify that she was one of three ships in the Charlemagne class battleship?
  • Done.
• "The Charlemagne-class ships carried a total of 820.7 tonnes (807.7 long tons)[4] of Harvey armour.[5] They had a complete waterline armour belt that was 3.26 metres (10 ft 8 in) high. It tapered from its maximum thickness of 400 mm ..." - goes from "they" to "it". - what does "it" refer to p the waterline armour belt? This paragraph a little confusing going from it to they and back etc.
  • Done.
• "accidentally rammed the submarine Vendémiaire on 8 June off the Casquets, killing all 24 of the submarine's crew." - seems drastic. There was no consequence?
  • Noting is given in my sources, but they're not that detailed.
• "By this time, naval operations were limited to bombarding" - would it be ok to say "French naval operations"?
  • The Allies had given up by this time any ideas about breaching the Straits with ships alone and the only task for their surface ships was to provide fire support for the troops ashore. Submarines attempted to penetrate into the Straits with some success, but I can't think how to make such a distinction flow smoothly. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

These are just my comments, since I haven't read all that many ship articles.

MathewTownsend (talk) 19:26, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• ok, thanks for your replies!

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   a. prose: clear and concise, respects copyright laws, correct spelling and grammar:

   b. complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   a. provides references to all sources in the section(s) dedicated to footnotes/citations according to the guide to layout:

   b. provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:

   c. no original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   b. it remains focused and does not go into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.

   fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   no edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   a. images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   b. images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Pass

• Congratulations! Very nicely done. MathewTownsend (talk) 13:41, 7 July 2012 (UTC)