# Talk:Colbert-class ironclad

Since it's covered in the body of the text, shouldn't the lede mention that the ship was a steam frigate or at least that it was powered by steam? The Colbert class were a pair of steam powered armored frigates... i.e.basic information. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Every armored frigate was steam powered, so that doesn't need to be specified in the lede.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
People savoy about naval history may know that but I doubt the average reader does. The ship in the photo has masts for sails and may lead one to think it was powered under such. No visible or apparent smoke stack. Anyway, good luck with the GA nom'. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
It's covered in the main body so I haven't had any complaints about the issue in the dozens of ironclad articles that I've pushed through GAN. Hope we both get reviewers soon.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, what does the term 'at the muzzle' mean? (i.e. "...was credited with the ability to penetrate 14.3 inches (360 mm) of wrought iron armor at the muzzle.") Does this mean point blank range? -- Spotted a few items that a picky reviewer might take issue with. While the article primarily uses metric measurements and converts to standard, it uses standard and converts to metric to describe wrought iron thickness per cannon's penetrating capability.  Might want to add some more content if possible (e.g.effective range of the big guns, names of any battles engaged in, name of the commander(s) of the flag ship when the Colbert saw service in the Mediterranean, why the barbettes, of all structures, were unarmored, the location of the engine and smoke stacks, and it doesn't seem necessary to describe the ship's top speed using a narrow range that's  defined using two decimal places (i.e.14.18–14.47 knots -- just mentioning 14 knots seems definitive enough and looks less cluttered) Other than that, upon cursory examination the article looks good as sources and writing go, but seems a bit short and begs a few questions naval buffs and perhaps some average readers might ask, imo. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
It's short because the ships saw no combat other than bombarding Sfax and there's been very little published on them in either French or English so there's no design history to explain oddities like unarmored barbettes. I'd love to have fleet commanders' names, but they're just not available. Yes, "at the muzzle" means literally just that, closer than even point-blank range. You make a good point about the conversions and I'll fix them shortly. Range figures for these old guns are not available and is actually fairly irrelevant as effective range for all big guns was only about 1,000 yds at that time.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:21, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Here's a publication (Operations of the French Navy During the Recent War with Tunis, Issues 1-2, 1885) that mentions various commanders and admirals associated with the Colbert. On Page 19 it mentions a Captain Tabarean and on page 15 it mentions an Admiral Garnault.  There are other formats.
In Ironclads in Action: A Sketch of Naval Warfare from 1855 to 1895, 1898 on page xviii it says that Vice-Admiral Garnault and Rear-Admiral Martin commanded the flagship and squadron.
In Contemporary France, 1909 it also mentions Admiral Garnault on page 605
Garnault is also mentioned in a 1880 New York Times article. (see link to PDF file)
Other useful accounts that mention Garnault : 1, 2, 3Hope this helps.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:50, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I've disabled citation bot until I find out why publisher data is being removed from one journal citation.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:23, 28 October 2018 (UTC)