Talk:French destroyer Le Triomphant/GA1

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

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) 04:27, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I will review this article for GAN. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:27, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Initial comments: G'day, Sturm, this looks pretty good to me. I have the following comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 06:18, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * there are no dup or dabs links (no action required)
 * ext links all work (no action required)
 * the earwig tool reports no copyright violation as likely (no action required)
 * images lack alt text, suggest adding it in (suggestion only):
 * "File:Le Triomphant AWM-P05103.003.jpg": source link does not seem to work - suggest using AWM-image instead
 * I wasn't sure how to fix this, so thanks.
 * the article is well referenced, using reliable secondary sources in most cases; the two instances of primary source use they appear to be used simply for dates/facts and are used appropriately (no action required)
 * "File:Le Triomphant AWM-P05103.003.jpg": suggest using the PD-AustraliaGov licence
 * should classification as a light cruiser be mentioned in the lead?
 * I don't think so as it was really just nominal. These ships were around the size of the German Type 1936 and the US Gearing-class destroyers.
 * slightly inconsistent: "Launched: 16 April 1934" (infobox) v. "She was launched on 16 April 1933" (body); otherwise the infobox matches the body
 * then began having engine --> "then began experiencing engine"?
 * according to th AWM the ship was given a small RAN detachment, might be worth a brief mention:
 * the large destroyer only --> the ship had been reclassified as a light cruiser by this time
 * Good catch
 * Temporary repairs there took until 21 February: suggest maybe mentioning the year here
 * Le Triomphant was the first French warship to deploy to French Indochina, arriving --> "Le Triomphant was the first French warship to deploy to French Indochina in the postwar period, arriving..."?
 * slightly inconsistent "Dumas" v "Doumas"
 * Thanks for the review; see if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:58, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries, looks good to me. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:57, 2 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.