# Talk:French battleship Danton

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I'll review this. I like these French ships. MathewTownsend (talk) 20:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
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)
ok, all checks out per GA criteria. Pass!  MathewTownsend (talk) 16:25, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

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