Talk:French ironclad Indomptable

French ironclad Indomptable 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: February 26, 2020. (Reviewed version).

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

Military history: Maritime / European / French

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

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

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Gatoclass (talk · contribs) 11:26, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
Lead section: She was modernized in 1898 with new guns, but by the early 1900s, as numerous, more effective pre-dreadnought battleships had been built since 1890. The sentence appears to have no object.
Probably something that got rewritten one times to many

Indomptable was modernized in 1898, having her old 420 mm guns replaced with a pair of 274 mm (10.8 in) Modèle 1893/1896 guns - just two guns, or two pairs to replace the previous two pairs?
A one-for-one swap - hopefully a bit clearer now

Her secondary battery was replaced with quick-firing versions of 100 mm guns - multiple versions? Or just one version installed multiple times?
Good catch

A squadron of cruisers and torpedo boats was tasked with intercepting the convoy. Presumably this is a reference to wargame maneuvers, but it's not clear that was the case.
Clarified

The convoy used bad weather to make the passage, as heavy seas kept the torpedo boats from going to sea. Again, the situation is unclear; were the French actually at war, or was this just a simulation of wartime conditions?
Just a simulation
Parsecboy, I have rewritten the paragraph regarding the convoy escort maneuvers as I found the original too confusing. If you have no objection to the changes, I think this can be promoted now.
My only concern was dropping the line about why the convoy exercise was held - this is a major strategic consideration of the French (and eventually was what they did at the start of WWI). Parsecboy (talk) 16:38, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Parsecboy, the reason I dropped that is because - well, firstly, because the source didn't clearly support it, and secondly, because the convoy exercise went from Toulon to Algiers, not the other way around, and it therefore didn't make much sense to have a sentence in there saying the exercise was for testing a convoy going in the opposite direction.

Parsecboy, I see you reinserted the statement I deleted. On reflection, I think the paragraph still makes sense regardless, so are we agreed on the content now?
Yes, I think so. Parsecboy (talk) 17:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
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 since all sources are offline. I will say however that I think you should link any online sources; the age of some of these sources indicates that they would likely be online.
I added a few that I could find, but for some reason, google books isn't cooperating with me.

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
AGFing on this since all sources are offline.
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):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
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:
There is actually another useful image you could add, here.
I'm on my laptop at the moment, so will upload that tomorrow. Thanks Gatoclass. Parsecboy (talk) 12:23, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As it turns out, somebody already did here. But I don't think there's room for it in the article as it is now. Parsecboy (talk) 19:47, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, it was just a suggestion and it's not a GA requirement, so I will leave it to your discretion.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Everything looks good now. Thanks once again Parsecboy for your prompt response to issues raised! Gatoclass (talk) 09:08, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]