Talk:French ironclad Triomphante

Suggestion

For an eventual GA (I assume), I'd like to see more of an explanation for why the ship's construction was delayed so long. I'd assume the Franco-Prussian War was a big part of it, but I'd like to know how much of it was the general disorganization caused by the war itself and the resulting political instability and how much of it was "lessons learned" by operating against the (practically anemic) Prussian navy. Parsecboy (talk) 12:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Nothing I have explains why the ships were delayed. It certainly wasn't to incorporate lessons learned since there was no significant naval combat during the war. I can only presume that the general post-war malaise and the desire to upgrade the armament were the cause. Ropp, in his "The development of a modern navy: French naval policy, 1871-1904", talks about how the prolonged French construction times were a legacy of the old idea to keep a number of half-built ships around to be completed in a time of war. Unfortunately he doesn't mention these ships specifically, but that also might be a part of it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Skinny87 (talk) 08:18, 6 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):

   Who is Sabbatier - I presume either a company or an individual? A wikilink and a little context is needed.

   I have nothing on him other than a name and rank.

   What was the reason behind the decision to remove one screw to improve sailing efficiency? Was it intended for the Triomphante to be powered by steam and sail, and thus one screw removed, or was the design somehow overpowered, perhaps?

   It was a question of drag. Under sail the propellers were stationary and draggy. I'm not happy with the wording of the explanation, so feel free to tweak it.

   'and was credited with the ability to penetrate a nominal 12.5 inches (320 mm) of wrought iron armour at the muzzle' - The phrase 'at the muzzle' confuses me. It makes it seem, from an initial read, that the shell could penetrate an armoured muzzle. Is the phrase needed? The sentence seems to work perfectly well without it.

   The armor penetration is measure as if the plate is literally at the end of the barrel, not at a more reasonable 100 yds, etc.

   wikilink Corbigny

   Done

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   You mention a delayed construction time in the lede, but not in the Service section, although it is alluded to by the lengthy time period between laying down and launching. Can you add this to the section, with some details on why there was a delay and what additions/ommissions were made by taking advantage of that period?

   Unfortunately, details are lacking other than the later two ships were up-armed. I don't have a specific explanation of why construction was so prolonged. Ropp talks about a general malaise in the French Navy after the Franco-Prussian War and mentions funding problems as well as a general policy of keeping ship under construction for lengthy periods that could be completed quickly during a crisis.

   Are there any specific details of what the Triomphante did during the Battle of Fuzhou, as the article would seem to show that she did quite some damage.

   Added

   'Triomphante helped to capture the Pescadore Islands in March 1885 during the Pescadores Campaign, losing two killed and five wounded.' - How did she gain these casualties - from naval engagement or artillery bombardment from coastal weapons? Perhaps de Balincourt might have more details for this and the above section? There are also a few sources available in the articles on Fuzhou and the Pescadores Campaign.

   Added.

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:

I think this article covers everything it can apart from some expanded details on the lengthy construction time, and any mjore battle specifics that can be found. Skinny87 (talk) 13:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't pin anything specific on the reason for the lengthy construction time and ignored it. I can add something, but it would have to use weasel words.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. Would the stuff Ropp talks about fit as a general possible explanation? Ie something like 'There are no specific reasons given for the lengthy construction period, but Ropp argues [malaise, quick construction during war] which may account for the delayed construction time] which might account for it'? Or do you think that would be weasaly/OR? Skinny87 (talk) 20:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Ropp would do as a general comment and it's not OR since I'm just citing him. OK, give me a little bit to track down all the page cites.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Explanation added.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Yep, looks good to me now. Promoting. Skinny87 (talk) 08:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)