Talk:French destroyer Renaudin

French destroyer Renaudin 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: January 12, 2023. (Reviewed version).

France Low‑importance

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ships

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

Military history: Maritime / European / French / World War I

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	European military history task force
	French military history task force
	World War I task force

GA Review

Passed. Hog Farm _Talk 03:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

"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)[reply]

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

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.