Talk:French ironclad Richelieu/GA1

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

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 2 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;
 * ext links work;
 * image lacks alt text: you might consider adding it in, but it is not a GA requirement (suggestion only).

Criteria

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * I've made a few copy edits, but otherwise looks fine to me. Please check that you agree with my edits;


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * No issues, looks fine to me for GA, although for higher it might need to have a slightly broader reference base.


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * would it be possible to add a clause explaining what being cut down to a schooner rig entailed?
 * I'm not entirely sure other than the types of sails that she carried were changed.
 * do we know why the ship caught fire?
 * Unfortunately, no.
 * would it be possible to add something (even a small sentence) about what the ship did while assigned to the Mediteranean Squadron between 1881 and 1885?
 * Done, although I've only got sporadic info on individual years.
 * what did being the flagship for the Reserve Squadron entail? Does that mean she was active, or remained in port between 1892 and 1900?
 * Done, see above.
 * do you know how far the ship drifted? It might be interesting to specify this if it is know;
 * Unknown.


 * 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:
 * Just a couple of minor points that I think need to be addressed, but otherwise looks fine to me. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks good, well done. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)