Talk:Alma-class ironclad/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Skinny87 (talk) 08:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 'Three others patrolled the North Sea and the Atlantic while the last ship was enroute to Japan when the war began and blockaded two small Prussian ships in a Japanese harbor' - Comma needed after Atlantic
 * Agreed.
 * 'while another helped to intimidate the Vietnamese Government into accepting a French protectorate' - This is a little awkward and I would suggest the phrase 'intimidate the Vietnamese Government into accepting status as a French protectorate'
 * Yes, much better phrasing.
 * 'Montcalm, Atalante, and Reine Blanche cruised the North Sea and the former later watched a Prussian corvette in Portuguese waters' - Does 'the former' mean both vessels, or just one of them? Did they do anything to the corvette? You also need a comma after 'North Sea'.
 * Clarified. No, the corvette remained in Portuguese territorial water for the duration. Disagree about the comma.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 'This design was changed to substitute four barbettes for the upper battery,' - What led to the design being changed?
 * Unspecified in my sources, but my guess would be weight problems.
 * Some details on the range and firepower of the vessel's weapons would be appreciated, especially if a reader were to try and compare this with another contemporary vessel.
 * Couldn't find anything of significance the first time I looked. I'll try a couple of other sources.


 * Data for the 194 mm Mle 1870 gun has been located.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 'On 3 July 1877[6] Thétis rammed Reine Blanche who had to be run ashore to prevent her from sinking.' - Was this an accident, or somehow intentional? Clarification would be nice.
 * No further details, although I'd think that it was an accident. They are in the same navy, after all.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:

A brief but seemingly comprehensive little article. A few changes and some armament details, and it'll be good to go. Skinny87 (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright, let me know when you've searched, results or no, and I'll pass the article. Skinny87 (talk) 20:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks good, so I'll be passing now. Skinny87 (talk) 13:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)