Talk:French battleship Iéna/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Ealdgyth - Talk 15:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be reviewing this article shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
some spots that aren't quite clear
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
a few questions remain about specific items
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
need a caption on one picture
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Specific concerns

Images:
- Need a caption on the second picture.
  - Done.
Lead:
- I'd expect the lead to be a bit larger for the size of this article, perhaps a include when she was designed, laid down and her length and displacement?
  - Expanded somewhat.
- Every sentence in the lead but the first one starts either "She" or "Her", which is very repetitious, need to vary that somewhat.
  - Fixed
Design.
- When was she designed?
  - Unspecified in my sources, but probably 1897–98
- Who is the Conseil des travaux?
  - Translated. Possibly worth a redlink.
- Who is "Constructor Thibaudier"?
  - Beats me, some designer.
- what's "tumblehome"?
  - Linked in the lede.
General characteristics:
- who reported that she rolled and pitched a lot?
  - That's what's said in Conway's as cited. However, the statement is unattributed there. Do I need to rephrase it somehow?
Propulsion:
- Need to explain what "ihp" is in the text, not just link it.
  - Spelled out on first occurance.
- You've linked all the various units of measurement but knots, probably should.
  - Done.
Armament:
- "The guns could probably be depressed..." "probably"? If there is doubt about this, the dissension should be explained.
  - Rephrased that bit.
- Lots of sentences starting "the guns" or "the armor" or "the ship's" ... repetitious, needs a bit of variety here to help with keeping the reader's interest.
  - How does it read now?
- How many anti-torpedo guns?
  - Rephrased
- "Four 450mm torpedo tubes were also carried..." carried sounds REALLY weird in terms of a tube, unless they were external tubes mounted on the deck. Suggest rewording or making it clear if they were actually separate physical tubes that were attached to the ship rather than as most tubes are worked through the hull.
  - Changed to mounted instead. Not sure if the above-water tubes were internal or external.
Armour:
- "The upper armour belt was in trwo strakes, ..." strakes? What's a strake? Link and explain.
  - Done.
- what was the combined height reduced to at the stern?
  - Rephrased since none of my sources have the exact height at stern.
- Why do you link turret in the armour section, but fail to link it in the armament section above? Wouldn't it make more sense to link it at the first occurance?
  - Agreed and done.
History:
- "almost immediately upon entering service Iéna was tranferred to the Meditteranean Squadron" this implies that she was in another squadron prior to the transfer, in which case you should note which squadron she originally was in, but if she wasn't, you need to reword this to avoid implying such.
  - Rephrased.
Loss:
- You need to give the loss figures and damage figures for the explosions. You incidentally discuss how many were lost, but how many of these were on the ship? How many on shore? how many on other ships? What all was destroyed on the ship? What percentage of the ship was damaged?
  - Very little of what you're requesting is available, even in contemporary press reports. No firm numbers for crew vs dockyard workers vs crew from other ships. Two civilian deaths in town mentioned, a baby and her mother, but I'm not sure it's worth mentioning them separately.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'd suggest putting in that there were two civilian deaths, and that the rest were military. Otherwise your other changes look good. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Added.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]