Talk:French destroyer Espingole/GA1

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

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 23:10, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, look, a ship article from Sturm! I'll be reviewing this article shortly... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:10, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


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


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * A couple f spots of prose that are unclear and some choppy prose. Also the lead has information not in the body of the article.
 * 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:
 * Lead:
 * Ooops... you've got information in the lead that isn't in the body - you give her class in the lead but I'm not seeing it in the body of the article?
 * Design:
 * Pure personal choice, but I generally prefer "August and September 1900" to "August–September 1900".... it just looks nicer to me and reads less clunky to my eyes. It's not required for GA status for this to change.
 * I'm so proud..."She had a crew of four officers and sixty enlisted men." You got it right!
 * How many ships in her class?
 * Construction:
 * "The ship was laid down in 1896–97[3] by Normand at their Le Havre shipyard. She was named after a French type of blunderbuss." Choppy sentences - suggest combining - "The ship was laid down in 1896–97[3] by Normand at their Le Havre shipyard; she was named after a French type of blunderbuss."
 * "then owned by the Ottoman Empire." wouldn't it really be "then part of the Ottoman Empire."?
 * "After landing two companies of marines that occupied the major ports of the island on 7 November, Sultan Abdul Hamid II agreed to enforce contracts made with French companies and to repay loans made by French banks." This makes it sound like Abdul Hamid landed the marines ... I'm pretty sure that's not what's meant.
 * Consistency - you do "13 November to 2 December" or "3–27 September" ... I think it'd be better to decide on either "-" or "to" and stick to one form.
 * Okay, this "The navy sold her wreck at auction in December 1909 and decided to contract the job out to a private firm" doesn't make any sense to me. If they sold the wreck, how could they then contract out the salvage?
 * I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You know what Emerson said about consistency, don't you? Fixed everything that could be fixed and rewrote the rest. See how it reads. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:01, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm out of town until Thursday... unless you're in a tearing hurry, I'll leave this until I get back to the big computer instead of the tiny laptop. I'm being a big girl an ignoring the comment about consistency as beneath me... Ealdgyth - Talk 14:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks good, passing it now. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:11, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Consistency - you do "13 November to 2 December" or "3–27 September" ... I think it'd be better to decide on either "-" or "to" and stick to one form.
 * Okay, this "The navy sold her wreck at auction in December 1909 and decided to contract the job out to a private firm" doesn't make any sense to me. If they sold the wreck, how could they then contract out the salvage?
 * I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You know what Emerson said about consistency, don't you? Fixed everything that could be fixed and rewrote the rest. See how it reads. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:01, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm out of town until Thursday... unless you're in a tearing hurry, I'll leave this until I get back to the big computer instead of the tiny laptop. I'm being a big girl an ignoring the comment about consistency as beneath me... Ealdgyth - Talk 14:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks good, passing it now. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:11, 19 July 2013 (UTC)