Talk:French ironclad Amiral Baudin/GA1
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) 04:33, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
I will post a review shortly. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:33, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Initial comments: G'day, Nate, nice work. I have a few minor comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 05:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- there are no dup links and no dab links (no action required)
- all works cited appear to be reliable (no action required)
- the launched date of 5 June 1883 appears in the infobox, but not in the body of the article
- Good catch, that was from the original article and I didn't notice it - apparently I didn't overhaul the top section of the box, as most of the dates were missing or wrong (as below)
- the infobox says the ship was broken up in 1910, but the body and lead do not mention this
- the infobox says the torpedo tubes were 450 mm, but the body says they were 381 mm
- 381 is correct
- the infobox mentions a number of stats for the post refit armament that I couldn't seem to find in the body of the article
- Good catch - I apparently forgot to add the modifications section
- the fact that the replacement guns were quick firing appears in the infobox, but not the body of the article
- As above
- in the References, Jordan is out of order alphabetically
- Fixed
- from Brest to La Rochelle, which the ships bombarded, neutralized...: suggest maybe starting a new sentence after La Rochelle. Additionally, as this was a peace time exercise, did they actually bombard the town (one assumes not), or some other area outside the town to simulate the bombardment? Or did they use blanks of some description?
- Clarified - I'd assume they used blanks of some sort, but Brassey doesn't say exactly what they did
- "File:French ironclad Amiral Baudin NH 64387.jpg": not sure about the PD-Because rationale. Is there potentially someone tag that might be better here? It seems to have come from the Office of Naval Intelligence in 1936, so wouldn't it be considered the work of a US Navy sailor? See here. Thoughts?
- It's tough to tell with the ONI images - they might have been taken by USN personnel, but I've also seen a number of photos of German vessels on the NHHC website that are stated to have come from ONI that I know were originally taken by German photograhpers - I think it was fairly common for ONI to simply collect high quality photos that had been published elsewhere. My assumption is that the French photos in their collection are almost certainly either from Marius Bar or Alexandre Bougault (two noted French maritime photographers of the era) that were collected by ONI, which would put them as {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}, but since I can't prove it, I'v deferred to the generic NHHC template
- "File:Fernch ironclad Amiral Baudin NH 66055.jpg": suspect that this could be deemed a work of a US Navy sailor as it seems to come from the Farenholt Collection. Please see here and here. Thoughts?
- That's another tricky one - Farenholt's collection included more than just the album described on that page and as I recall, included photos that Farenholt collected from postcards and such along with those he took himself (I forget where I saw that, but the page you linked indicates that the album was compiled between 1880 and 1885, well before this photo could have been taken - and here's an example clearly not taken by Oscar). Oscar Farenholt's son Ammen was also in the Navy and also donated his own collection (though the NHHC can't seem to keep them straight - see here, supposedly about Ammen's collection but the text is actually about Oscar's - then see, for example, this photo most definitively taken by Oscar, but credited to Ammen's collection). Given the uncertainty, I'd prefer to just defer to the generic template.
- Ok, no worries, thanks for digging that out. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:44, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- That's another tricky one - Farenholt's collection included more than just the album described on that page and as I recall, included photos that Farenholt collected from postcards and such along with those he took himself (I forget where I saw that, but the page you linked indicates that the album was compiled between 1880 and 1885, well before this photo could have been taken - and here's an example clearly not taken by Oscar). Oscar Farenholt's son Ammen was also in the Navy and also donated his own collection (though the NHHC can't seem to keep them straight - see here, supposedly about Ammen's collection but the text is actually about Oscar's - then see, for example, this photo most definitively taken by Oscar, but credited to Ammen's collection). Given the uncertainty, I'd prefer to just defer to the generic template.
- "File:Fernch ironclad Amiral Baudin NH 66055.jpg": the file is misnamed -- small point, but you might consider moving it "Fernch" --> "French"
- Good catch, fixed.
- do we know why the ship was laid up? I assume because it was replaced by more modern vessels?
- Yes, though the sources don't specifically say that. This is one of those annoying cases where policy prevents us from drawing logical conclusions to clarify things for readers - I came across something similar with French ironclad Amiral Duperré when I added this material - it's practically screaming "was nobody who knew of these experiments still in the French Navy in 1914?" Parsecboy (talk) 13:29, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, indeed, I see what you mean. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:44, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, though the sources don't specifically say that. This is one of those annoying cases where policy prevents us from drawing logical conclusions to clarify things for readers - I came across something similar with French ironclad Amiral Duperré when I added this material - it's practically screaming "was nobody who knew of these experiments still in the French Navy in 1914?" Parsecboy (talk) 13:29, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Criteria
1. Well written: 
- a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; 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.