Talk:Alsace-class battleship/GA1

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

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 00:21, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I'll get to this shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:21, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No DABs.
 * What evidence is there that the Richelieu photo is actually USN? That's an awfully shitty image. A much crisper, colorized version can be found at if you can confirm its provenance.
 * It was taken at the same time and by the same USN patrol plane as this one (and a few others on Commons) - note the identical elevation of the guns. I'll upload the colorized one
 * Second London Naval Treaty fell apart Not exactly the most encyclopedic language I've ever seen
 * No, but I can't come up with any alternatives that aren't of a similar tone (i.e., "broke down") or don't go into too much detail for a minor point in the lead - do you have any ideas?
 * Collapsed, perhaps?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:04, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That works for me
 * But another two authors. Awkward, I'd suggest "another pair of authors"
 * Done
 * Not fond of moot as a verb. Perhaps terminated?
 * Works for me
 * Link both units for tons and shp
 * Done
 * 16 × 2 × 100 mm (3.9 in) anti-aircraft (AA) guns I'd translate this as 16 twin turrets and just use and link the abbreviated form of AA guns
 * Done
 * Not quite what I meant, but I fixed it for you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:55, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Watch the roundings for 350 mm in the infobox, the table, and the design proposals section and for 360, 400 and 420 mm
 * I just went through my old German BB FAs and fixed a lot of these...
 * I've done this a little bit for mine, but not in any systemic way as I combine it with adding links to the tonnages and a general infobox cleanup.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:55, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 56,000 long tons (57,000 t) ships, though French intelligence initially believed them to be only 40,000 long tons (41,000 t) vessels Turn these tonnages into the adjectival forms
 * Good catch
 * (that was to be designated Dock No. 10) that was 275 m proximity alert for "that was"
 * Fixed
 * Spell out shp with links on first use in the main body
 * Done
 * The table's awfully wide. Consider eliminating the normal displacement column.
 * I put it in so I wouldn't have to specifically cite it in the infoboxes or mention it in the text
 * Fair enough.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:04, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Consolidate adjacent cells with identical data
 * Ugh but I'm lazy :P
 * But, just think, you'll be able to improve your HTML table building skills for your employer and get an increase in pay! Oh, wait, you're on salary. And you don't write HTML. :-( Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:04, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hahahaha, you think my employer would give a raise for additional skills...
 * Riiiight!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:55, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The table shows all three proposals with identical deck armor, why then do Garzke and Duilin discuss reducing that thickness slightly?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:55, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Those figures are from Jordan & Dumas. Parsecboy (talk) 18:13, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd regard them as the more accurate account considering how old G&D is, so I'd suggest that you cut that bit out of the text.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:04, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Right, that's why I went with J&D for the table - I think the line is fine as is, as it's couched as according to their study, which is speculative. Parsecboy (talk) 20:21, 29 August 2019 (UTC)