Talk:French submarine X/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jalapeño (talk · contribs) 07:20, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be reviewing this one. (Review version: 1177229354) 🔥Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 07:20, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sturmvogel 66 thank you for submitting this nomination. Sorry if I'm gonna respond a bit late, but I'm busy so it'll take a bit more time for me to finish this review. 🔥Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 08:49, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sturmvogel 66 Sorry for taking a really long time. I've been busy lately and I couldn't review this article until now. 🔥Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 11:39, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jalapeño: - this review has gone on for quite a long time - are you going to finish it or should someone else take it over? Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 11:53, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm gonna let someone else take over. I'm really busy so I'm unable to fully complete this review. 🔥Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 12:18, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough - I'll take it over, as I have 2 of the 3 sources used in the article. Parsecboy (talk) 12:57, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Keep in mind that this is work in progress, so please don't be surprised if it takes some time.

Sourcing

[1]: Passed Sourcing seems adequate. (Roberts, pp. 425, 427-428)
[2]: Passed ~~Source at the stated page (Roberts, p. 428) does not confirm any of the information in the article it's supposed to back up. (No infinity symbol and no propellor shaft)~~ Apologies, the source is accurate. (Roberts, p. 428)

Roberts, p. 428 "took on a cross-section resembling a figure 8 lying on its side amidships and branched out into two separate submerged circular hulls, one for each shaft" --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:52, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[3]: Failed Source at the stated page isn't even in the France section, and contains no information about the submarine X. The stated page number may be a mistake. But the entire book has no mention of "Dauphin", "499,500" or "francs", either. I used the archive.org preview for this. (Campbell, p. 207)

Good catch, I cited the wrong volume of Conways. Fixed now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:19, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[4]: Passed ~~Source at the stated page (Garier, p. 200) does not confirm any of the information in the article it's supposed to back up. (No length, beam, or tonnage.)~~ Apologies, the source is accurate. (Garier, p. 200)

I'm now confused, what source are are you referring to, Roberts?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:52, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Garier, p. 200. 🔥Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 09:15, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You do see "longueur hors tout (longueur d'encombrement): 37,700 m", largeur extérieure de la carène au fort: 3,124 m, Déplacement: 165,40 tonnes et surface - 180 tonnes en plongée in the upper right column?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:59, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. It may be because I'm using Google Books to preview since there's no library in my country that has any of these books, and I'm too broke to order books. 🔥Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 07:12, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it. You don't need to spend money to validate any footnote; a spot check is fine. Look at some other GA reviews to see how people review them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:12, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[5]: Passed Source backs up information in the article. (Roberts, p. 429)
[6]: Passed} Source backs up information in the article. (Roberts, p. 428-429)
[7]: Reviewing... Please be patient. (Garier, p. 202)
[8]: = Not reviewed yet. (Roberts, p. 428)
[9]: ? Page 203 does not seem to be available in the Google Books previews. I will look for an alternate way to check the sourcing from this page. (Garier, p. 203)

Copyvios

None Y

Grammar

Checking soon.

Coverage

I'm missing lots of info. What did it do in the English Channel? Why did it make those two voyages mentioned in the article? When were those two voyages? Why weren't repairs made to the submarine?

You're asking questions for which the sources don't provide any answers. I'd bet that no repairs were made because the submarine was functionally obsolete and not worth repairing, but that's just my opinion.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:20, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be direct here. If the answers for these questions aren't found in the sources listed in the article, then find sources that can answer these questions and give more insight into the ship. 🔥Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 10:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Garier is the gold standard for pre-WW2 French submarines and Roberts for pre-WW1 French ships in general. If more info was available, I believe that they'd have published it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:37, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Illustration

Seems alright Y

GA list

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
on File:French submarine X (1904).jpg - the cited source doesn't mention Bar, how do we know he's the photographer? Bar tended to work in the Mediterranean, didn't he? As I recall, photos taken in the Atlantic/Channel tend to be Bougeault's work.
Garier has a less-cropped version in his book and doesn't list it as attributed to Bar in his photo credits. He says that it was taken in Cherbourg harbour between 1905 and 1908. It might be a cropped and magnified version of a scanned postcard or commercial photo, but there's no way to determine that. Deleted and nominated for deletion from commons.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:14, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Some general comments:
Seems odd to include the letter X as the ship's namesake - it wasn't named after the concept of the letter X, right?

There were two other experimental subs built around the same time, Y and Z, so no.

Right, my point is the subs weren't named after the letters, they were just given an alphabetical designation, like many other navies have done. PT-109 wasn't named after the number 109, so it shouldn't be listed as the boat's namesake. Parsecboy (talk) 22:54, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Right, already deleted--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, for some reason when I looked earlier I thought I saw it was still there - must have been in a turkey-induced haze. Parsecboy (talk) 16:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please bold Dauphin in the intro - alt names are generally given bold text there (and it explains the hatnote better)

Too bad we don't have a plan/profile drawing - that hull shape sounds nuts

Are the horsepower units right? I'd expect Garier is using metric horsepower

Good catch.

Think that's all from me. Parsecboy (talk) 13:10, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking this over so quickly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:14, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all - I'm happy to pass now. Parsecboy (talk) 16:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]