Talk:French destroyer Fronde/GA1

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

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 17:02, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

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

This looks an interesting article submitted by Sturmvogel 66 and Parsecboy on a lesser-known vessel with an interesting story. It has been a pleasure to review.

Comments
This is a stable and well-written article. 60% of authorship is by Sturmvogel 66 and 30% by Parsecboy. It is currently assessed as a Start and C class article for different WikiProjects but has subsequently seen major activity.


 * The text is clear and concise.
 * It is written in a summary style, consistent with relevant Manuals of Style
 * The article is of appropriate length, 1,027 words of readable prose.
 * The lead is of appropriate length at 104 words.
 * There is no evidence of edit wars.
 * Text seems to be neutral, comprehensive and shows a balanced perspective.
 * I see no obvious spelling or grammar errors.
 * Earwig's Copyvio Detector identifies a 5.7% chance of copyright violation, which is therefore given as unlikely.
 * There seems to be a low chance of original research.
 * Citations seem to be thorough.
 * uboat.net is used as a source. It looks self-published and the owner, Gudmundur Helgason, and the contributor Rainer Kolbicz seem to present themselves as a programmer and a computer specialist. Please can you demonstrate that this is a reputable source.
 * See the discussion at []
 * Thank you for the link. It feels that the discussion is inconclusive but tends towards unreliable. Therefore I feel it would be better to replace this with a source that is certainly reputable. simongraham (talk) 20:08, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Replaced, but be advised that my research for my GAN on HMS Bonaventure shows that uboat.net is now using primary references, which is the main argument against the site, IMO. See for yourself at I think that we need to judge it on an article-by-article basis.
 * Interesting. This does seem an extensive resource. However, I feel that Peacemaker67's comment that "All three of author, content and publisher need to be reliable. The content may generally be reliable, but the author needs to be too, as does the publisher." is still relevant.
 * The remaining references appear to be from reputable sources.
 * All accessible sources are live.
 * Spot checks confirm Campbell 1979 and Jordan & Caresse 2019.
 * Corbett seems to link to Volume IV rather than I. Neither seem to have the information on page 158.
 * I'll check this tonight.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:35, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Good catch, fixed.
 * The images are appropriate and relevant.
 * The image has appropriate licensing and public domain tags.

Suggestions
These are not GA criteria, but I think would enhance the article. & : Excellent work on this. Please see my comments above and ping me when you would like me to look again. simongraham (talk) 17:09, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Suggest adding alt text to images to enhance accessibility.
 * Suggest following "in the strait" with a comma to help delimit the subclause.
 * Suggest looking at the dash in the title of Stanglini & Cosentino 2022.
 * Suggest looking at the sfn template for references as it wikilinks the footnote to the source.
 * I hate sfn format while Parsec likes it. But it gets set by whoever adds the first citation.
 * It may be that wikipedia policies of be bold and ignore all rules help.
 * Suggest using either ISBN 10 or 13 consistently in the references.
 * I always use whichever format was in force when the book was published.
 * Will look at the others later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:37, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review; see if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:27, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your prompt response. I will take the French sources in good faith and complete the review now. simongraham (talk) 07:02, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Assessment
The six good article criteria:
 * 1) It is reasonable well written.
 * the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;
 * it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
 * all inline citations are from reliable sources;
 * it contains no original research;
 * it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism;
 * it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage
 * it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
 * it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
 * 1) It has a neutral point of view.
 * it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;
 * images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Pass. simongraham (talk) 07:06, 3 June 2023 (UTC)