Talk:French ironclad Invincible

French ironclad Invincible 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: January 4, 2014. (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

France Low‑importance

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 13:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grabbing the article for a review later today. Miyagawa (talk) 13:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, here goes.

No duplicate links.
Are refs are obviously fine. Very interesting to have the 1896 source in there as well, to give some information more recent than the modern books. Certainly from back when I was doing the dog breed articles I always found the historical sources more helpful as often the modern sources just leave things out.
No external links to check.

Well I've given it a read through twice now and I can't find anything that would stop this from being considered a GA immediately. Nice job. Miyagawa (talk) 15:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]