# Talk:French cruiser Victor Hugo

This review is transcluded from Talk:French cruiser Victor Hugo/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Eddie891 (talk · contribs) 18:01, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
I'll take this on over today and probably into tomorrow. Eddie891  Talk Work  18:01, 23 April 2020 (UTC)


### Comments
"Right elevation and deck plan as depicted in Brassey's Naval Annual 1923" perhaps "Right elevation and deck plan as depicted in Brassey's Naval Annual 1923"?
link Otranto Barrage as the "blockade of the Austro-Hungarian Navy in the Adriatic Sea"?
"reach their designed speed" -> "reach their top speed"? I'm not familiar with such a thing as 'designed speed'
The speed which the ships were designed to achieve--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:35, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
"anti-torpedo boat defense" maybe just "torpedo boat defense"? I don't think the anti- is needed
"was fully committed to building" -> "was committed to building"?
"the ships returned to Jamestown " had they arrived previously?
Almost certainly, but not explicitly mentioned in the source.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:35, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
our article uses caps for "Naval Review"
That would only be appropriate if it were a proper name.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:35, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
"not the leisurely 6 knots" could do without 'leisurely'?
No, it's important to emphasize that Léon Gambetta was basically just puttering along.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:35, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
"and to rebuild the army" maybe specify what army, or say "rebuild their army"?
"they decided to occupy the" -> "they occupied the"?
what is the "Salonica Front"?
"across the bridge over the Corinth Canal on 28 April to interfere" so was it just for one day or for the broader "early 1917"?
No, between 28 April and 12 June.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:35, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
link Toulon?
That's it from me- all minor stuff, and open to discussion/disagreement. Eddie891  Talk Work  18:24, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for catching all of these; just about all of them needed to be clarified.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:35, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Sturmvogel 66, I've spotchecked the sources, to the extent that I can access them, and see no issues with reliability, comprehensiveness, prose, copyvio, and neutrality. Happy to promote- Nice work! Eddie891  Talk Work  23:26, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:44, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Sturmvogel 66 and Parsecboy, I have a question about the Serbian Army’s retreat in 1915. In the sentence "At the end of 1915, the French and British decided that the Serbian Army's position in Montenegro and Albania was untenable and that it would have to be evacuated," it sounds like the Allies were making a decision for the Serbian Army to retreat. However, Serbia was already in the process of retreating through Montenegro and Albania at that time. I'm curious—does this mean that Serbia initially intended to hold a position there, or is the sentence referring only to the final evacuation from Albania? I’d really appreciate any clarification! P. ĐĂNG (talk) 04:44, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm currently traveling and don't have access to most of my library at the moment, so I can't provide a firm answer. The linked article suggests the Serbs intended to be withdrawn from Albania, but it's also a bit thin on details of how the decision was made. Was the Serbian high command in contact with its British and French counterparts? Parsecboy (talk) 09:39, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
Parsecboy I do not have access to the relevant books at the moment, so I am not entirely sure what specific information they provide in this context. That said, I think the sentence could be refined for clarity, as it currently feels somewhat contradictory. The Serbian Army had already intended to withdraw from Montenegro and Albania, so it seems unclear why the sentence frames the evacuation as a decision made by France and Britain. P. ĐĂNG (talk) 08:24, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
Sturmvogel 66 and Parsecboy Could you clarify this matter? Given that this is a GA article, I'd appreciate it if you could review it again. P. ĐĂNG (talk) 11:34, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
As I said before, I'm traveling and don't have access to most of my books. I can't help until next week. Parsecboy (talk) 11:36, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
Parsecboy Next week works. I'll be in touch. All the best, P. ĐĂNG (talk) 13:22, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
Parsecboy As it’s now the following week, would you be available to continue the discussion today? P. ĐĂNG (talk) 14:28, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
Jordan & Caresse simply state: "By the end of the year the situation of the Serbian Army had become untenable, and the only solution was a complete evacuation." So no discussion at all as far as how the decision was made. I don't have Freivogel, so Sturm will have to weigh in on that. Parsecboy (talk) 16:31, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
Sturmvogel 66, could you join this discussion? P. ĐĂNG (talk) 16:49, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
Parsecboy, I see the issue with the article, but it hasn't been resolved ye. The sentence currently reads: "At the end of 1915, the French and British decided that the Serbian Army's position in Montenegro and Albania was untenable and that it would have to be evacuated."
This might imply that the Allies were the ones who initiated the retreat, but in fact, the Serbian Army had already begun its retreat.
To clarify, I suggest the following revision: "By the end of 1915, the Allies supported the evacuation of the Serbian Army, which had already begun retreating through Montenegro and Albania."
This change reflects the historical sequence more accurately. I’d be glad to implement it if you agree. P. ĐĂNG (talk) 07:09, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
That's fine with me. Parsecboy (talk) 12:20, 21 April 2025 (UTC)