Talk:French ironclad Thétis/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Skinny87 (talk) 15:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Blah blah footnote, you know the drill :)

   I think that you must have started this right before I added the footnote to all these ships.

   Does this need the note about why it took more than two years to build the ironclad, a la the other French ironclad articles?

   I don't think so, 2-3 years is normal. 5+ is exceptionally long and needs to be explained.

   You need to mention the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-1871 in the Service section, as an explanation for their blockade.

   Done already

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Did the Thetis do anything proactive to support French citizens during the Carlist War?

   Nothing is specified. I just know that she was present.

   Can it be clarified if it was an accident (presumably) when she rammed the other French ship?

   Done already.

   Any idea why she wasn't sent as the Flagship of the Pacific Squadron?

   No idea, just that she was replaced by Montcalm.

   How did she lose her propeller?

   Not specified, although I'd dearly like to know myself.

   Forbes and Rockwell in citations, not in references

   Do you want me to move them down into refs and convert them into short cites?

   What she was named after is mentioned in the lede, but not the main body of the article

   Done and cited.

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:

Interesting article, needs a few details and then it can be passed. Skinny87 (talk) 15:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Hah, looks like I'm outpacing your efforts to add those notes, for which I apologize! I'm going to pass this now, but if you could move those refs to what is proposed (short system) that would be great. Skinny87 (talk) 16:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)