Talk:French ironclad Caïman

French ironclad Caïman 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 28, 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 articles

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 articles

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 Caïman/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 23:34, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Review comments

Lead

She was the third member of the Terrible class, which included three other vessels. They were built... suggest rephrasing: She was the third of four ships of the Terrible class, built...
- Good idea
The last sentence of the first para of the lead refers to the Terrible not Caiman
- Fixed
..but by the early 1900s, as numerous, more effective pre-dreadnought battleships had been built since 1890. this flows oddly. Suggest rephrasing: but by the early 1900s, as numerous, more effective pre-dreadnought battleships had been built ~~since 1890~~.
- Done

Infobox

The torpedo tubes mentioned in the design section aren't listed in the armament section
- Good catch
Perhaps add a note that the specs are as built to avoid confusion with the changes made due to the modifications in her later years?
- Probably worthwhile to add a separate box for the refit, seeing as it was fairly significant

Service history

Any info on namesake? Presumably it is for the Caiman
- Nothing I saw, but that seems fairly obvious
The dates for the modernisation work differs between the design section and here (1898 and 1900 respectively)
- Fixed - 1900 is correct
There is a big gap in her career between 1906 and 1927, presumably a reflection on the sources. Is there even a decommissioning date?
- No, unfortunately - Conway's is a bit sparse, and I couldn't find anything post-1906 in any of Brassey's annuals. French ships of the era aren't particularly well documented (with the exception of a handful, like Furieux).

Other stuff

No dupe links
No dabs or external links
Image tags look OK

Looks in good order generally, minimal issues identified. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 23:34, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Zawed. Parsecboy (talk) 01:31, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This looks all in order. I'm satisfied that the article meets the GA criteria. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:16, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]