Talk:French cruiser Léon Gambetta/GA1

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

Reviewer: Usernameunique (talk · contribs) 04:00, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Lead
 * (Escadre du Nord) ... Mediterranean Squadron (Escadre de la Méditerranée) — These terms are used only in the lead.
 * Northern Squadron is used, but Mediterranean Squadron is not. By the time the ship was transferred there, it had another name.
 * "Northern Squadron" is used, but the french name "Escadre du Nord" is not; see my edit which added it to "Construction and career". The fact that the Mediterranean Squadron changed its name would be a reason to a) explain the nuance in the article's body (but not the lead), or b) uniformly use the new name. But if the old name isn't body-worthy, I'm not sure why it would be lead-worthy.
 * I translate each term on first use only.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm still not clear on why the name "Mediterranean Squadron" is lead worthy but not body worthy—were if me, I might mention in the body that the 1st Squadron was recently renamed from the Mediterranean Squadron. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:31, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The lead doesn't summarize any of the information from the "Description" section.
 * Correct, impossible to summarize without being redundant, IMO.
 * By that logic, isn't any summary redundant? The point of a lead is to "briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." Do you not think that a description of a ship is one of the most important points in an article about that ship?
 * Yes, but how much of a description? I've given the size of her guns and that they were larger than the earlier armors cruisers.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * served as a flagship. — a flagship, or the flagship?
 * She never served as the fleet flagship, so "a"
 * You might want to add that the ship was the the ship was the flagship of Rear Admiral Victor-Baptistin Senès at the time of her sinking.
 * That's a detail best reserved for the main body.

Description
 * The first two ships (Léon Gambetta and Jules Ferry) — Link Jules Ferry?
 * The engines were rated — The engines of the Léon Gambetta, or the engines of each of the three ships?
 * The latter. See if "their engines" is clearer.
 * Yes, that makes sense. I'm realizing now it's also a little unclear whether this section is talking about two ships (Léon Gambetta and Jules Ferry) or all three ships. Which is it? And out of curiosity, how was Victor Hugo different?
 * Aside from the boilers, the ships were almost identical, so it's written to cover all of them while noting their differences. Victor Hugo was slightly longer than her sisters and had a different type of boiler.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * their designed speed — their designed top speed?
 * The Gambettas' waterline armor belt ranged — Are you referring to all three ships here? It's a bit unclear, since the Léon Gambetta is the only one with "Gambetta" in its name. If so, why about "The Gambetta-class waterline armor belt ranged" or similar.
 * Howzabout "the cruisers" instead?
 * The front and side sides — "side sides" sounds off.
 * Oops.
 * Is there a reason the interior structure of the ship isn't described at all?
 * It's not much discussed in the sources. About all that's covered is the arrangement of the engine and boiler rooms.
 * Sounds fascinating. Perhaps we should save that for the lead? Just kidding, of course—makes sense to omit.

Construction and career
 * the recently passed Naval Law — Is the law actually named the "Naval Law"? Or are Naval Laws a type of law that encompass many different laws?
 * The former. It's very different than the US equivalent as it specifies the numbers of ships in each category and authorizes the construction of ships to make up the numbers specified. The Germans used a similar system.
 * in a fog — in fog?
 * They read much the same to me, but OK.
 * One of her bilge keels was damaged and the blades of her propellers were bent. — Is there any info about how this was fixed and how long the delay was?
 * Annoyingly, no. Got lots of info about the previous incident and almost none about this one.
 * finally began her official sea trials in April 1905 — But you say above that they began in December 1903.
 * Builder's trials almost always are the first ones to be conducted. Added "preliminary" to clarify that these weren't the official ones.
 * was commissioned (armement définitif) on 21 July at a cost of 29,248,500 francs. — This makes it sound as if the cost of the commissioning itself was 29 million francs, not the total cost of building the ship. Also, is there an inflation template that would work here?
 * Clarified. These are capital costs and don't work with ordinary inflation calculators. My rough guess would somewhere on the order of a couple of billion francs.
 * Northern Squadron ... 1st Cruiser Squadron ... 2nd Squadron ... 1st Light Division — Anything to (red) link to here?
 * I'd like to, but I don't think that I really have enough information to build articles on these formations.
 * Vice Admiral Horace Jauréguiberry assumed command of the squadron by October and remained in command through July 1909. Léon Gambetta participated in the Northern Squadron's visit to Portsmouth the following month to commemorate the signing of the Entente Cordiale allying France and Britain. In October she ferried Émile Loubet, President of France, home from a state visit in Lisbon, Portugal. — This is confusing, because the reference to July 1909 makes it sound as if "the following month" is August 1909, when it must have actually been November 1905, since Loubet left the presidency in February 1906. This also suggests that the part about Loubet should come before the part about Portsmouth.
 * I see you removed the "through July 1909" part, but it's still unclear. Now it jumps from October to November to October, without specifying what year the second October is in—presumably the following October, but this should be stated.
 * Reordered and combined sentences here. I think that it's clearer now. See how it reads for you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yep that's better. If you have a date for when "The ship was assigned to the Northern Squadron" that would be even clearer, but it's a minor point. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:31, 23 April 2020 (UTC)


 * the following July — Does this mean 1908 or 1909?
 * What does "DL" mean?
 * Covered in the first sentence covering all the reorganizations and renamings.


 * The 2nd DL was reformed on 10 February 1912 — But above it sounds like it was never disbanded ("The 1st DL was redesignated as the 2nd DL"), so wouldn't need to be reformed.
 * Yeah, my source is confusing about it as well as it doesn't ever mention that it was disbanded, but specifically mentions it was reformed on that date.
 * Léon Gambetta remained a flagship. — Same comment as above: a flagship, or the flagship?
 * Reworded.

World War I
 * The latter — Meaning the battleships?
 * yes.
 * Jules Ferry was narrowly missed by U-5 — What was U-5? It's a pretty important point, given that it subsequently sank the Léon Gambetta. Also, U-5 appears a lot in this section; is anything known about what its orders were (e.g., was it patrolling the area)?
 * U-5 is identified as a submarine in the lead. The sub was patrolling, but I don't know if it was patrolling any specific area or acting on any sort of intelligence, though I doubt the latter.
 * Boué de Lapeyrère was informed — Who informed him?
 * "Paris" which isn't specific enough to be usable, IMO
 * the Montenegrin Foreign Minister — What was his name?
 * Not given in the sources and the wiki articles on this period of Montenegrin history are pathetic.
 * There was another false alarm on 4 April, during which U-5 had spotted the cruiser off the island of Paxos, but was not able to maneuver into an attack position. — Sounds like the alarm was real, it just didn't result in anything bad. Also, did Léon Gambetta know it had been seen by U-5?
 * Remember that the alarm was that the whole Austro-Hungarian Fleet was going to pass through the Strait, not just a couple of subs or whatever. No, the sub wasn't spotted.
 * Good point, I missed the "during which" part of that sentence, and read it as if the false alarm was that the ship had been spotted.
 * she had been stalked for a day and a half — Did the stalking begin before she was ordered to move?
 * I doubt it, but the timing on the order to move is unclear.
 * Are there any details about the rescue? Did most drown because they were trapped in the ship, or because they couldn't survive in the water for long enough?
 * Almost certainly the latter, but my sources don't give a time when the Italian ships arrived, just "later"
 * Surely there are sources discussing the impact of the sinking, and how it was perceived by both sides? That an artist saw fit to paint it suggests that this was considered a propaganda victory for the Central Powers.
 * I'm sure that it was trumpeted by the Central Powers, but there's no coverage of the propaganda aspects in any broader histories of the war that I'm aware of. I will add a bit about the immediate impact on the French, though.

Images
 * Images could do with alt text
 * URL for the source of the infobox photgraph is broken
 * Yeah, that photo archive is down for "remodelling". No matter, though since it's scanned from a pre-1925 book.

References
 * Any reason for not directly citing any of the further reading?
 * They're contemporary reports, not the most reliable of sources. Just look at the last one in the list, there weren't any German ships within hundreds of miles. They were there before I started expanding the article, didn't feel it to just delete them outright.
 * As I recall you're not a fan of sfn footnotes, right? Just checking.
 * You remember rightly.

Overall
 * Nice article, . It seems to stop a bit abruptly with the sinking, but otherwise the comments are pretty minor. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:35, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your most thorough review. See if I've addressed your comments satisfactorily.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:03, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem, . Responses above. The ones I'm most concerned about are the ones for clarity, and afterwards I think this will be ready to promote. Also, in the first round of comments I neglected to suggest making a subsection titled "Sinking", possibly by turning "Construction" into a separate section, and then "World War I" and "Sinking" as subsections of "Career". But just a suggestion. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:52, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that I've address all of your points, but see how my changes work for you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . I've added two points above, but they're pretty minor, so I'm passing now. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:31, 23 April 2020 (UTC)