Talk:French battleship Suffren/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Parsecboy (talk) 12:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   "only struck Bonite a glancing blow" doesn't sound right to me. The following sentence should also make clear we're talking about Suffren's damage, not Bonite's.

   See how it reads now, but I thought it was pretty clear before since I specified the damage suffered by the submarine.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

   Better now. Parsecboy (talk) 02:33, 27 July 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):

   Do you know how many rangefinders were fitted at the outbreak of WWI?

   Just the one installed in 1908.

   I was referring to the rangefinders installed after the outbreak of war: "Shortly after the war began Suffren was fitted with additional Barr and Stround rangefinders near the bridge." You mention that two were mounted fore and aft of the bridge. Were these the only two or were there more? Parsecboy (talk) 02:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

   Ah, I understand now. My source is unclear. It says additional, but only mentions two.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

   I think we can reasonably assume it was just the two. For a ship with only two gun turrets, I don't see why you'd need more than one for each. Parsecboy (talk) 12:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

   What was the reason the French barged into Eleusina ready to attack the Greeks?

   Not specified in my source, but probably the Greeks were whining about being used as patsies by the Entente despite not being a party to the war.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

   It's not a big deal for GA, but if you take this to ACR/FAC I'd suggest finding out what was going on behind the incident. Parsecboy (talk) 02:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

   Agreed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

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:

   Nice work on this article; just a couple of little things and I'll pass it for GA. Parsecboy (talk) 12:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)