Talk:Liberté-class battleship

This review is transcluded from Talk:Liberté class battleship/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 21:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC) [reply ]

Alright, I'll review this to add to my collection! MathewTownsend (talk) 21:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi,

I've made the following edits which you're free to change.[1]

Those all look fine to me. Parsecboy (talk) 22:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC) [reply ]

• "was a group of four pre-dreadnought battleships of the French Navy. The class comprised Liberté, the lead ship, Justice, Vérité, and Démocratie." - not readily clear why only three visited the US.
  • None of the sources say why, so I'd prefer not to speculate.

• "Two years later, Liberté's forward magazines exploded in Toulon harbor, destroying the ship and killing approximately 250 of her crew." -why does the body of the article continue after the "The explosion aboard Liberté killed some 250 officers and men.[8] The wreck was left in Toulon until 1925, when it was raised and broken up for scrap."?
  • I don't know that I follow. Are you asking why Liberte's ultimate fate isn't in the lead?

• "after the revolutionary British HMS Dreadnought," - after the revolutionary design of the British HMS Dreadnought?
  • I don't think there's a problem with calling the ship revolutionary versus its design - isn't the design part implied in the first? The sentence is already fairly wordy, and I don't really want to make it longer.

• "with good success" - with success? used successfully in the Navy's experiments ..
  • Good point. Thanks for reviewing the article, Mathew. Parsecboy (talk) 22:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC) [reply ]

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   a. prose: clear and concise, respects copyright laws, correct spelling and grammar:

   b. complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, summary style and list incorporation:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable ?

   a. provides references to all sources in the section(s) dedicated to footnotes/citations according to the guide to layout:

   b. provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:

   c. no original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   b. it remains focused and does not go into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.

   fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   no edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   a. images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   b. images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Pass!

• Congratulations! MathewTownsend (talk) 19:01, 19 October 2012 (UTC) [reply ]