Talk:French destroyer Le Triomphant/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) 04:27, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article for GAN. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:27, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments: G'day, Sturm, this looks pretty good to me. I have the following comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 06:18, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

there are no dup or dabs links (no action required)
ext links all work (no action required)
the earwig tool reports no copyright violation as likely (no action required)
images lack alt text, suggest adding it in (suggestion only): [1]
"File:Le Triomphant AWM-P05103.003.jpg": source link does not seem to work - suggest using {{AWM-image}} instead
- I wasn't sure how to fix this, so thanks.
the article is well referenced, using reliable secondary sources in most cases; the two instances of primary source use they appear to be used simply for dates/facts and are used appropriately (no action required)
"File:Le Triomphant AWM-P05103.003.jpg": suggest using the PD-AustraliaGov licence
should classification as a light cruiser be mentioned in the lead?
- I don't think so as it was really just nominal. These ships were around the size of the German Type 1936 and the US Gearing-class destroyers.
slightly inconsistent: "Launched: 16 April 1934" (infobox) v. "She was launched on 16 April 1933" (body); otherwise the infobox matches the body
then began having engine --> "then began experiencing engine"?
according to th AWM the ship was given a small RAN detachment, might be worth a brief mention: [2]
the large destroyer only --> the ship had been reclassified as a light cruiser by this time
- Good catch
Temporary repairs there took until 21 February: suggest maybe mentioning the year here
Le Triomphant was the first French warship to deploy to French Indochina, arriving --> "Le Triomphant was the first French warship to deploy to French Indochina in the postwar period, arriving..."?
slightly inconsistent "Dumas" v "Doumas"
- Thanks for the review; see if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:58, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - No worries, looks good to me. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:57, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

1. Well written: Y

a. the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and

b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research: Y

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; and

d. it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.

3. Broad in its coverage: Y

a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Y

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute Y

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: Y

a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.