Talk:French cruiser Amiral Charner

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:French cruiser Amiral Charner/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Parsecboy (talk · contribs) 14:22, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Why are French translations for some units/commands given but not others?

   Because I'm not always sure of the actual term, many of which changed over time, much like the term for French Navy varies from Marine nationale to Armée de mer.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:44, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

   I'd link Port Said

   What type of ship is Jeanne d'Arc?

   Good catches.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:44, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   This has some details on her service in the Cruiser Squadron - don't know if anything warrants inclusion but thought you might want to give it a look.

   This on (p. 76) gives a bit more detail on the activities of the Training Squadron - might be worth adding

   See p. 170 here - she had a grounding in the Yangtze in Nov. 1900

   Haven't looked myself, but anything in Ropp's book worth including? I have a copy if the one in Google Books doesn't show anything that might come up.

   Thanks for your suggestions and I've added some extra material from them, although the ship's not mentioned in Ropp, who's better at the earlier classes.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

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):

   Any way we can track down the original source for File:Amiral charner.jpg? Heh, while digging through the old journals, I found it - see here - it's much higher-res but also it's a bad scan - maybe somebody can clean it up a bit?

   It might be hard to do without rescanning it, but I'll ask Adam about it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:36, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

   Hohum has cleaned up some photos like this that I've uploaded in the past (see for instance this one) - maybe he can take a look as well? Parsecboy (talk) 19:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

   I have Photoshop, I should be able to get rid of the moiré effect given directions, which is probably all that these guys are doing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

   Fair enough - I don't have anything that fancy ;) Parsecboy (talk) 20:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

   Can we get a line-drawing from an old Brassey's? I'm sure it's out there. (and indeed there is one in this one) Might even be a usable illustration/photo out there as well - a lot of the French ships of this generation have them floating around (or at least the early pre-dreadnoughts did)

   Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:36, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Thanks for being so thorough in your review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:36, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Certainly - passing for GA now. Great work as usual. Parsecboy (talk) 20:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)