Talk:French ironclad Caïman

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 23:34, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Review comments

Lead

• She was the third member of the Terrible class, which included three other vessels. They were built... suggest rephrasing: She was the third of four ships of the Terrible class, built...
  • Good idea
• The last sentence of the first para of the lead refers to the Terrible not Caiman
  • Fixed
• ..but by the early 1900s, as numerous, more effective pre-dreadnought battleships had been built since 1890. this flows oddly. Suggest rephrasing: but by the early 1900s, as numerous, more effective pre-dreadnought battleships had been built since 1890.
  • Done

Infobox

• The torpedo tubes mentioned in the design section aren't listed in the armament section
  • Good catch
• Perhaps add a note that the specs are as built to avoid confusion with the changes made due to the modifications in her later years?
  • Probably worthwhile to add a separate box for the refit, seeing as it was fairly significant

Service history

• Any info on namesake? Presumably it is for the Caiman
  • Nothing I saw, but that seems fairly obvious
• The dates for the modernisation work differs between the design section and here (1898 and 1900 respectively)
  • Fixed - 1900 is correct
• There is a big gap in her career between 1906 and 1927, presumably a reflection on the sources. Is there even a decommissioning date?
  • No, unfortunately - Conway's is a bit sparse, and I couldn't find anything post-1906 in any of Brassey's annuals. French ships of the era aren't particularly well documented (with the exception of a handful, like Furieux).

Other stuff

• No dupe links
• No dabs or external links
• Image tags look OK

Looks in good order generally, minimal issues identified. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 23:34, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Zawed. Parsecboy (talk) 01:31, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

This looks all in order. I'm satisfied that the article meets the GA criteria. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:16, 28 February 2020 (UTC)