Talk:French ironclad Surveillante
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Parsecboy in topic GA Review
French ironclad Surveillante has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: August 28, 2020. (Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA Review
editGA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:French ironclad Surveillante/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Parsecboy (talk · contribs) 14:42, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
And this one too. Parsecboy (talk) 14:42, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- I tend to prefer not using trials speed/hp in the box, though I suppose I don't know that the 19th century French Navy was as keen on the sort of manipulations you'd see in the 20th, so YMMV
- Generally, I agree with you, but the French only had a vague requirement for speed in this design of at least 13 kn and I thought that that it would be kinda stupid to use the 13.2 - 16.5 kn range that I use for the three ships for which I lack trials data, if I had trials data for Surveillante. I suppose that I could just use 13 kn for the on all of them, though. Thoughts?
- Just leave it as is, I guess
- Generally, I agree with you, but the French only had a vague requirement for speed in this design of at least 13 kn and I thought that that it would be kinda stupid to use the 13.2 - 16.5 kn range that I use for the three ships for which I lack trials data, if I had trials data for Surveillante. I suppose that I could just use 13 kn for the on all of them, though. Thoughts?
- The "horizontal-return connecting rod-" bit seems a bit too much detail for the box, but I prefer them to be as short and tidy as possible
- I've abbreviated it, but I always add the type of steam engine.
- You're usually using RML but there's one MLR - I'd guess that applies to the other articles in the series?
- link sea trials, mobilization, ship grounding
- Sea trials is linked in the propulsion para.
- Ah, missed that one
- Sea trials is linked in the propulsion para.
- ", completed that same month, completed that same month,"
- Sigh
- Check SMS Nymphe (1863) for some details on the activities of Bouët-Willaumez's squadron that you may want to add
- The dates don't correlate at all. Nymphe supposedly made her attack on 23 July, but B-W didn't even depart Cherbourg until the 24th and didn't enter the Baltic until 2 August.
- Seems Hildebrand et. al. is confused - I had a look at this contemporary source and it jives with the 24th July departure date. It does mention a brief skirmish between Surveillante and SMS Grille (which I'll need to add to that article). Parsecboy (talk) 20:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- Nymphe made her attack on 23 August, not July.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:23, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's what I guessed.
- I found a 1900 source, The Franco-German War 1870-71, that states the Nymphe fired her two pointless broadsides against Surveillante, but only mentions Grille in conjunction with Thétis and Jeanne d'Arc, no mention of any attack against Surveillante. I wonder if your source is confusing the ships, especially since it appears to be published shortly after the war.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- Certainly a possibility. Parsecboy (talk) 20:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- I found a 1900 source, The Franco-German War 1870-71, that states the Nymphe fired her two pointless broadsides against Surveillante, but only mentions Grille in conjunction with Thétis and Jeanne d'Arc, no mention of any attack against Surveillante. I wonder if your source is confusing the ships, especially since it appears to be published shortly after the war.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's what I guessed.
- The dates don't correlate at all. Nymphe supposedly made her attack on 23 July, but B-W didn't even depart Cherbourg until the 24th and didn't enter the Baltic until 2 August.
- "transferred to defend Paris." - you might just say "to defend the city" to avoid repeating the name
- Much better.
- You may also want to add some context on what the Prussian ironclads were doing (or, more accurately, why they weren't doing much apart from Arminius coming out to take potshots)
- I'm not sure that that's really relevant.
- Fair enough
- I'm not sure that that's really relevant.
Parsecboy (talk) 15:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- Nice work, I'm happy to promote now. Parsecboy (talk) 20:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)