Talk:French ironclad Colbert/GA1

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

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk) 22:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Initial comments
I have the following initial comments:
 * there appears to be a mixture of US and British English variation (e.g. "meters" (US), "armor" (US), "armour" (British), "honour" (British));
 * A little careless cut and pasting.
 * in the lead, the narrative flow might be improved slightly by adding the linking clause "that were" to this sentence: "The French ironclad Colbert was the lead ship of the Colbert-class ironclads that were (my emphasis) built for the French Navy in the 1870s";
 * Done.
 * in the Design and description section, "... as a improved versions of the ironclad..." (disagreement between "a" and "versions" - singular v. plural);
 * Fixed
 * in the Design and description section, "...most ironclads of her era she were..." ("were" doesn't agree with "she" - singular v plural). Also it doesn't appear to be clear to what "she" refers here - is that Colbert, the collective Colbert-class or in fact Richelieu?
 * Fixed
 * in the Propulsion subsection, it might be clearer if it is specifically stated that the ship used both sails and powered motor plant for propulsion. It seems only to be inferred;
 * Well, she could use either or both.
 * I think you could maybe make it a little clearer by being explicit about this, but I'll leave it up to you. Its not a major issue in the long run. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * in the Armament section, the presentation of numerals makes this a little hard to read: "...At some point the ship received 14 to 18 37-millimeter..." (perhaps spell out the quantities, e.g. "...fourteen and eighteen 37-millimeter...";
 * Spelling them out is much clearer; I usually try do that, but I obviously forgot this time.
 * I suggest wikilinking (if possible) terms like stern, amidships, etc. as not every reader will automatically know what these mean;
 * Generally I'm only willing to spend the time to link nautical terms when they're not well known like "abaft". A reader can use a online dictionary for bow, stern, etc.
 * Fair enough. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * in the Service section, I think that this sentence needs a linking clause to clarify the causal inference that is being made: "While the exact reason for such prolonged construction time is not known, the budget for the French Navy was cut after the Franco-Prussian War of 1870–71 and the French dockyards had not been reformed with working practices more suitable for the industrial age";
 * I'm not sure what you mean.
 * in the References section, the year range in the Gardiner source should have an endash per WP:DASH;
 * Done
 * in the References section, if possible could ISSN and or OCLC numbers be added to the de Balincourt, Brassey and Wilson works?
 * Done
 * in the External links section, I don't think the presentation of "SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN" should in all caps, even if that is the way the work itself presents itself, as the MOS allows us a certain amount of flexibility in adjusting punctuation/presentation to fall in line with general MOS principles. As such, I think it should just be "Scientific American";
 * Deleted.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I made a couple of subsequent tweaks. Please check that you are happy with them. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * They're OK, although I dropped the nevertheless.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:21, 19 November 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 by the tools.
 * one external link reported as dead:
 * image lacks alt text: although it is not a GA requirement, you might consider adding it.

Criteria

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * All issues dealt with per above.


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


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * No issues.


 * It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * No issues.


 * It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * No issues.


 * 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':
 * No issues.


 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * I have passed this article for GA as I believe it meets the criteria listed above. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)