Talk:French destroyer Volta/GA1

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

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk) 14:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Initial comments

 * in the lead, I think the bolded title should be in italics as it is the name of a ship;
 * Agreed.
 * the second paragraph of the lead seems a bit awkward to me and I think it needs to be reworded;
 * What are your thoughts on what should be done? I was trying to give the ship a little context, but that may be better off moved to the design section.
 * I've attempted to reword this section (apologies if I've mucked anything up). Please take a look. If I've misrepresented your intent, please just revert. I think that you will need to add a sentence or two to the design section dealing with the criticism that is in the lead if possible, though, because otherwise it is only mentioned in the lead. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It was fine, I just cleaned it up a bit. I've added a paragraph in the design section supporting the bit in the lede. See how it reads for you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * neither Chesneau or Lassaque appear to have been cited specifically, but they are listed in the References section. I think they should be in a Further reading section unless you add some specific references (which would be the best option, as it would expand the reference base);
 * Done.
 * Note # 4 appears use long citation style, when I think that for consistency it should use short citation style (e.g. "Rohwer, pp. 7, 9") with the full bibliographic details in the References section;
 * Agreed.
 * can you please check the date of publication for Whitley? The ISBN quoted seems to be for the 2000 edition ;
 * Fixed
 * in the Service history section, I think you should start a new paragraph after "...but provided to be ineffectual." and before "Volta was present during the British..."
 * Done
 * in the Service history section, ships names such as "Deutschland", "Gneisenau" and "Scharnhorst" should be in italics;
 * Done
 * I think a little bit of context might be added to explain why the British (an ally) attacked the French at Mers-el-Kebir;
 * Done
 * I think this sentence could be reworded slightly: "The French Navy decided to increase the anti-aircraft strength of the Mogador-class destroyers after the Armistice with Germany and installed two 13.2 mm Browning machine guns on platforms attached to the sides of the No. 3 gun mount in December 1940 – January 1941". I suggest this: "After the Armistice with Germany on (INSERT DATE), the French Navy decided to increase the anti-aircraft strength..."
 * Agreed
 * "...was becoming available." (I think this causes a tense issue, I'd suggest rewording);
 * Done
 * what does "taken in hand" mean?
 * reworded
 * "ASDIC" should be linked;
 * That just redirects to sonar. I think it's pretty clear that the ASDIC is a type of sonar since it was to replace the SS-6 sonar.
 * That's a fair call. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you should add a short sentence providing some context about why the Germans attempted to seize the fleet in November 1942. AustralianRupert (talk) 15:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Done.

Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Progression

 * Version of the article when originally reviewed:
 * Version of the article when review was closed:

Technical review

 * a (Disambiguations): b Linkrot  c Alt text
 * no dabs found;
 * ext links all work;
 * image/s lack alt text, you might consider adding it but it is not a requirement of the review

Criteria

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Looks fine for GA, but it might need a bit of a run through before ACR. I have done a bit of rewording myself to deal with any issues I found.


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * No issues I can find.


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * I think you just need to add a sentence or two to the design seciton, explaining the quote/criticism that is in the lead.


 * It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * Seems fine to me in this regard.


 * It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * some recent work, but no edit war.


 * It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):  d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain':


 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * Looks good, passing for GA. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)