Talk:French ironclad Terrible

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Gatoclass (talk · contribs) 05:51, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Something I should have asked on the other nomination Parsecboy - what are "supporting tubes"? Gatoclass (talk) 11:26, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

   The tubular supports that connected the barbettes to the magazines and housed the shell hoists. In modern parlance, the entire supporting structure for the rotating gun platform is referred to as the barbette, but at the time, the barbette was only the heavily armored ring above the deck. I've clarified in the text (and in the other articles too). Parsecboy (talk) 12:54, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

   One other issue I meant to raise earlier Parsecboy - when the article says they were the "largest guns" ever mounted on a French ship, is this a reference to caliber? Gatoclass (talk) 16:17, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

   Yes, that's right - clarified

   Actually, I've gotten a little confused here; caliber refers to the diameter of a weapon I believe, but the caliber referred to here represents the barrel length doesn't it? In which case, shouldn't that be clarified somehow? Gatoclass (talk) 17:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

   It's the same measurement - the length is expressed in terms of the bore diameter. There's a link to caliber (artillery) that explains the term.

   Yes, my momentary confusion arose from the fact that I went to the caliber article to refresh my memory, instead of the caliber (artillery) article which is linked here - all good now.

   Parsecboy, I've made a few additional minor tweaks to the article, if you are fine with it in its current form, I think this one is ready for promotion. Gatoclass (talk) 08:34, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

   Those all seem fine to me, thanks again, Gatoclass. Parsecboy (talk) 11:08, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it 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:

   AGFing on this as at least one source is offline.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   AGFing on this as at least one source is offline.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Parsecboy, I have uploaded a much larger alternative version of the Requin photograph, here, which you may want to consider using instead of the current version. Gatoclass (talk) 12:14, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

   Done, thanks.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Passed. Gatoclass (talk) 12:34, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments

• 'fire-tube boilers' is a bit vague. At the GA level, we ought to be more specific. What type? What pressure? The working pressure of steam plant around this period is a key indicator of the level of technical sophistication.
  • None of that is relevant for an article on an individual ship. The specific type of boiler would be nice in the class article, if known, but records on ships of this period are sparse. Working pressure is not particularly relevant to general readers, which is what we're writing for.
• What was the 'steel armor' made of? Again, this is another key indicator of technical progress at the time. Why is Caïman described instead as having 'compound armor'? What did this difference entail?
  • Mild steel - clarified. As to differences between this ship and another member of the class, it's not relevant here.
• Again, comparing to Caïman, why did Terrible have four funnels rather than two? Why did she have two, now on the centreline, after the rebuild? This is often indicative of quite major changes within the boilerroom. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Again, not relevant. The place to discuss differences between members of the class is the class article. As for the refit, presumably the boilers were replaced, but no evidence of what was done has survived (that I was able to find, in any event). Parsecboy (talk) 17:47, 24 February 2020 (UTC)