Talk:French ironclad Armide

GA Review

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

Reviewer: I'll get to work on this tonight. - Dank (push to talk) 23:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Questions

• I don't know what "Armide was expended" means. - Dank (push to talk) 23:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Used up. I can change it to sunk if you'd prefer.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• I checked all the Google Books hits for "armide ironclad" (without quote marks), and I'm surprised there's so little, apart from construction details. Still, there are some tidbits that you might add, since there's very little in this article on what Armide did. Per Marine engineer and naval architect, Volume 8, this was "probably" (?) the first time an ironclad was used as a moving target for gunnery practice. Per The war for the Rhine frontier, 1870, Armide and Rochambeau were substituted for Ocean and Flandre in a blockade of Baltic harbors. Your best bet is Naval battles of the century (1903), which has some details on Armide at the Battle of Navarino. (There's a chance the title is actually Naval battles in the century.) I don't have the relevant Conway's, but you do. Can you look at these quickly to see if there's anything you want to import? The article is a bit short as it stands. - Dank (push to talk) 02:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  • The Armide in the Battle of Navarino is an earlier ship.
    • So it is; struck. - Dank (push to talk) 17:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  • The blockade is already mentioned and I'd want something more definite about the moving target business before I added it. She really didn't do much; if I hadn't found those issues of the F.P.D.S. newsletter I'd have never even gotten it to B-class. There's no specified length for a GA; the main issue is completeness. I'll add a photo of a model of Armide's sister ship.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
    • The thing that drew the most hits in books was how the bombardment of the hull was conducted and what the results were; you could include a little of that if you think it will improve the article, but it's not my call, I'll ask for a second opinion after I finish the review. - Dank (push to talk) 17:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
      • I expanded the bit about the gunnery tests.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The second sentence of the lead isn't reflected in the text or cited. - Dank (push to talk) 19:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

   Don't think that I need to. There's an earlier ship with the same name French frigate Armide (1804).--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

   Waiting on a second opinion. - Dank (push to talk) 19:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

   If we can do something with these two points, we don't need a second opinion. I've followed up on this; the French Wikipedia has nothing on either ship named Armide except for a passing unlinked mention in the article on the battle that I struck above. The article on Armide says the Tasso character (translating) inspired a large number of musical works, and lists some. Back in the English Wikipedia, I looked at the other Armide article, and it doesn't have a ref either. I just don't think we can say that just because Tasso wrote a well-known poem, that Armide has to be the same as this Armide; for all we know, the ship was named after one of the derivative works, or after someone's daughter who was named after the Tasso character. Do your sources give a clue? If you have a web link, I'll struggle through the French. - Dank (push to talk) 03:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

   Couldn't positively confirm that she was named for the character although I do think it almost certain. Deleted it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   "broadness" ... I'll ask for a second opinion on this before I pass the article. Several contemporaneous books seemed interested in what was learned when she was used as a gunnery target. - Dank (push to talk) 19:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

   Details of what was learned are unlikely to be unavailable as they were likely considered secret.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

   Nevertheless, a lot of authors at the time thought the results of the test were interesting, enough to justify saying something about it, unless you want to make the argument that their interest was trivial or misguided. See for instance this, this, this, this, this, and this. - Dank (push to talk) 19:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

   I understand you found some of these links interesting, and you mentioned making an edit but I don't see it, is it in another article? - Dank (push to talk) 03:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

   I was going to, but you preempted me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

   Now "on hold"; I've done enough digging of my own that I think we can slide without the second opinion. Hope that helps. - Dank (push to talk) 04:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

5. 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):

6. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: