Talk:French battleship Jauréguiberry/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk) 21:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 21:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • Armor section, "370–280 mm (15–11 in) of armour". Why is this backwards?
   • The first three paragraphs of the Service section feel really choppy, although the second one is the worst. Every single sentence is short and punchy, which makes it seem like reading a series of one line headlines than a coherant paragraph. The last paragraph feels much better - there is a combination of short and long sentences and it just feels like it flows better.

   • I've done a bit of work on this to try to make it flow better. Basically, use a combination of long and short sentences, with some connectors in between, to create a narrative rather than a series of "she did this. she did that. then she did this again." Dana boomer (talk) 17:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

   • What is an "accomodation hulk"? This term is used in both the lead and the body, but never explained or linked.

   • Hulk is linked in the lead. My source has only single entries for these years. I don't have a nice service history to paraphrase. Any concrete suggestions would be appreciated.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

   • I understand that hulk is linked in the lead, but that still doesn't tell me what an accomodation hulk is. The linked "hulk" article does not mention this term. Just a brief description for non-boat people is all I want - "She became an accomodate hulk (a hulk that is used for...)"

   • I added a definition to the hulk article. Will that suffice?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

   • I tweaked the link a bit, but it looks good now. Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 14:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

   • Also, too many "she"'s in the third paragraph of the service section. Gatoclass (talk) 08:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Overall this looks like a nice little article. A bit of work needs to be done on the prose, though, so I am placing the article on hold. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 22:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Everything looks good now, so I'm passing the article to GA status. Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 14:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)