Talk:Amiral Charner-class cruiser/GA1

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

Reviewer: West Virginian (talk · contribs) 14:15, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

, I will engage in a thorough and comprehensive review of this article within the next 48 hours. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns in the meantime. Thanks! -- West Virginian   (talk)  14:15, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

, I've completed a thorough and comprehensive review and re-review of this article, and I find that it meets the criteria outlined for passage to Good Article status. Prior to the article's passage, however, I do have comments and questions that should first be addressed. Thank you for all your hard work on this article! -- West Virginian   (talk)  14:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Lede
 * Per Manual of Style/Lead section, the lede of this article adequately defines the cruiser class, establishes the cruiser class's necessary context, and explains why the cruiser class is otherwise notable.
 * The info box for the cruiser class is beautifully formatted and its content is sourced within the prose of the text and by the references cited therein.
 * The image of Amiral Charner at anchor, c. 1897 has been released into the public domain and is therefore suitable for use here.
 * The info box should mention the Amiral Charner namesake.
 * Can't, that info is specific to the individual ship infobox, not the class one.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I suggest including some content from the "Design and description" section in the lede so that it is represented here. Rather than incorporate the specific design characteristics, you could mention in the lede that the ships were designed to be smaller and cheaper than the Dupuy de Lôme, or you could mention that the cruiser class was intended to fill the commerce-raiding strategy of the Jeune École.
 * Good idea. See how it reads.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The lede is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

Design and description
 * The image of the line drawing from Brassey's Naval Annual 1902 has been released into the Public Domain and is therefore acceptable for use here.
 * The "Design and description" should also incorporate a sentence about the cruiser class's namesake.
 * Strictly speaking, ship classes are named after their lead ship or a theme like rivers or battles. Thus there's no provision in the ship class infobox for the namesake.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

Ships
 * The table in this section is beautifully formatted, but the Builder, Laid down, Launched, Commissioned, and Fate columns should all have inline citations so that the contents within the columns are sourced.
 * Good catch.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

Service
 * The Bruix postcard has been released to the Public Domain and is therefore suitable for use here.
 * The image of the Bruix in coastal waters, before 1914 has also been released to the Public Domain and can be used here.
 * The Greco-Turkish War (1897) should be wiki-linked in its first mention in the prose outside of the lede section.
 * Why? It's a pretty short article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It's fine without, but usually an item such as this war is wiki-linked in the lede, then later in the main prose. It is fine without.
 * The inline citations from this section could be added to the table so all its content is sourced.
 * This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

Thanks for reviewing this and your compliments.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Sturmvogel 66, thank you for your expedient response and addressing all my above comments and suggestions. It is hereby a privilege for me to pass this article to Good Article status. Congratulations on a job well done! -- West Virginian   (talk)  00:41, 12 June 2015 (UTC)