Talk:French destroyer Renaudin

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:French destroyer Renaudin/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hog Farm (talk · contribs) 15:31, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I'll review this one this week. Hog Farm _Talk 15:31, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

• "The Bisson class were enlarged versions of the preceding Capitaine Mehl built to a more standardized design." - I'm a bit unsure of this phrasing. Capitaine Mehl is linked to a single ship, not a class, but the phrasing of "built to a more standardized design" suggests that what's being referred to is actually a class of ships
  • I struggled with how to phrase this as I didn't want to get too specific about stuff that should be reserved for the class article. Previously the French Navy issued general specifications which gave individual shipyards a great deal of latitude to meet the specs. Forex, the ships of the preceding Bouclier class had different hull shapes, boilers and even numbers of propeller shafts. The Navy finally realized that all this variety greatly increased the training requirements for its sailors and could even be a tactical hindrance as not all the ships of the class could reach the same speed or had the same turning diameter. Anyway, it decided to standardize on the hull form and layout of Mehl as that was thought to be the best performing ship of the Bouclier class.
  • I've added Mehl's class to clarify things a little, but I'd be happy to take suggestions about how to condense all of the above.
    • Scratch all that, I'm thinking of the class after this one.
• Per the body, the draft was 2.4, but the infobox has 2.2. Which is correct?
• Should the complement in the infobox include the officers?
• Range per the body was 1,450 nm but the infobox has 1,950. Which is correct?
• WWI ought to be directly named in the body somewhere
• Shouldn't the article be in Category:1913 ships, not Category:1912 ships, since it was launched in 1913?
• Image and sources look fine

Good work here, placing on hold. Hog Farm _Talk 02:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt review. All done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:28, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.