Contents

Talk:French battleship Danton

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the French battleship Danton article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

	French battleship Danton 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 reassessit.
	French battleship Danton is part of the Battleships of France series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones Date Process Result July 8, 2012 Good article nominee Listed August 25, 2020 Good topic candidate Promoted
	A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on February 19, 2009.
Current status: Good article

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

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 / World War I / Operation Majestic Titan 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 World War I task force Operation Majestic Titan (Phase I) Shipwrecks Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shipwrecks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of shipwreck-related articles 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.ShipwrecksWikipedia:WikiProject ShipwrecksTemplate:WikiProject ShipwrecksShipwreck articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Shipwreck-related priority open tasks: edit history watch purge To Do Lady Elizabeth (1879) Clean up typos Currently working on it-----Completed! Improve grammar Add any additions if needed Still adding more information Discuss desired additions -None France Low‑importance 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.

Might it be wise to include the location of the wreck in lat/long? I note the BBC News is carrying images and videos which appear to have a numeric East and North measurements, but converting them out is the question... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7898890.stm 78.32.62.65 (talk) 09:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

took me while to work out how to convert using coordinates in the source but have done so and added to article, Tom B (talk) 15:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of dates of laying down always annoys me. Here is what I have so far:

• Breyer. Battleships and Battle Cruisers. p. 418. says "10.1.08".
• Couhat. French Warships of World War I. p. 25. says "2.06".
• Gardiner. Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships, 1906-1921. p. 196. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) says "2.06".
• Preston. Battleships of World War I. p. 45. says "February 1908".
• The contemporary Bulletin de l'Association technique maritime. p. 32. says "Mai 1908".

The most damning piece of evidence against a 1906 laying down is a report from the 1909 edition of the Journal of the American Society of Naval Engineers p. 677 which says the slip Danton was built on wasn't even ready until 1908. C'est la vie. --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 18:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a commendable collection of sources you've got! I'd say write 1906, 1908, or 1906/08 (wherever you think the evidence leans) in the infobox and then add all the info you've got right above here in a footnote. Joshdboz (talk) 19:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 20:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll review this. I like these French ships. MathewTownsend (talk) 20:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

review

• "made them rather unsuccessful ships" - is "rather" encyclopedic?
• I made a couple of edits; are they ok?[1]
• That's all. Good work, and on hold
  • As far as I know, "rather" isn't archaic or colloquial - it should be ok.
  • The comma looks good, but the link was to the wrong ship - another editor caught it though so it's good. Thanks for reviewing this article as well :) Parsecboy (talk) 14:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• ok, all checks out per GA criteria. Pass! MathewTownsend (talk) 16:25, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here. Parsecboy (talk) 20:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]