Talk:French destroyer Fleuret (1938)/GA1

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

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) 10:06, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I will review this shortly. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:06, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Initial comments: G'day, Sturm, looks pretty good. I have the following comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 11:06, 7 September 2019 (UTC)


 * the references appear to be reliable (no action required)
 * in the lead, the link to "Dakar" has been cut off to just "akar"
 * July Attack on Mers-el-Kébir --> "July attack on Mers-el-Kébir"
 * I couldn't find the 10 May 1940 commissioning date in the body, although it is mentioned in the infobox
 * the armistice with the Germans is mentioned in the lead, but not in the body
 * the attack on Mers-el-Kebir is mentioned in the lead, but not the body
 * the German occupation of Vichy France is mentioned in the lead, but not in the body
 * the lead says it was the Germans who scuttled the ship as a blockship, but they aren't mentioned in the body
 * encountered only an unidentified British destroyer: this source says the British destroyer was HMS Wrestler:
 * Quite possibly, unfortunately, your source is SPS by non-credentialled people, so not RS--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:38, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:29, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * do we know who refloated the ship? Was it a private company?
 * inconsistent spelling: draft v. draught
 * Rohwer is included in the References but not used
 * there are no dabs, there are no issues with ext links (there are none)
 * "File:Scuttled Le Hardi class NH 110745.tiff": has a PD-US-Navy tag, although it would have been taken at a time when it is unlikely a US sailor would have been able to do so. I think this is ok, if we are saying it was taken by someone working for the organisation as an intelligence agent (I base this on the source page that says " received from the Office of Naval Intelligence"). Is that your take, as well?
 * I think that spies count as employees for copyright purposes ;-) See if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:38, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Criteria

1. Well written: ✅
 * a. the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
 * b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research: ✅


 * a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
 * b. all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;
 * c. it contains no original research; and
 * d. it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.

3. Broad in its coverage: ✅


 * a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
 * b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. ✅

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute ✅

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: ✅


 * a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
 * b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.