Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/French battleship Jean Bart (1911)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 11 June 2019 [1].

French battleship Jean Bart (1911)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:42, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Bart had a typical career for a French dreadnought of her generation. Her participation in World War I mostly consisted of swinging around a mooring buoy as she was tasked to prevent a breakout into the Mediterranean by the Austro-Hungarian fleet, aside from helping to sink a small Austro-Hungarian cruiser and getting torpedoed. Between the wars, she was extensively modernized, but would have been too expensive for another refit in the mid-1930s. Jean Bart instead briefly became a training ship before she was converted into an accommodation ship for the naval schools in Toulon and had to give up her name for a newly building battleship. She was captured when the Germans occupied Vichy France although they only made use of her as a target for the massive shaped-charge warheads that they were developing. The ship was sunk by Allied airstrikes in 1944 and was scrapped after the war. The article had a MilHist A-class review a few months ago and I believe that it meets the FA criteria. I'd like reviewers to look for any stray AmEng and unexplained or unlinked jargon as well as any unfelicitous prose.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:42, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by CPA-5

[edit]

Looks like your first reviewer is here already. Also it looks like this is your first nomination in a long time right?

  • France on 16 July for a state visit to Saint Petersburg, Russia Replace the Russian Federation's link with the Russian Empire's article.
  • on 25–26 July, but a planned visit to Copenhagen, Denmark, was cancelled Unlink Denmark.
    • You're far more optimistic than I about the extent of our readership's geographic knowledge.
  • Thinking more about this, I don't think that we should be linking to the government in power whenever the ship visits. All that a reader cares about is what country the ship visited, not what regime was in charge.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:27, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're sure about that? I mean in this case (if I am clear) then why should we link Russia, Italy, Spain, Greece and Egypt, if their regimes are not important? I am in a little dwaal right now. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:39, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • split with the battleships headed for Otranto, Italy Replace the Italian Republic link with the Kingdom of Italy's article.
  • while the armoured cruisers patrolled off the Albanian coast Replace Republic of Albania's link with the Principality of Albania article.
  • supplemented by a pair of 75 mm (3.0 in) Mle 1891 G guns on anti-aircraft mounts uncessary nought.
  • the ship participated in the occupation of Constantinople Link occupation of Constantinople.
    • Linked in the lede
  • Jean Bart was transferred to the Black Sea to reinforce Link Black Sea.
    • ditto
  • made port visits to Bizerte, Crete, Egypt, French Lebanon, Corfu, and Greece Unlink both Egypt and Greece.
    • As I said before about geographic links
  • made port visits in French North Africa, Majorca, Spain and Casablanca, French Morocco Same as above unlink Spain.
    • And again
  • Additional mle 1912 4.57-metre rangefinders were added By MOS:NUMNOTES "Adjacent quantities not comparable should usually be in different formats".
    • Good catch.
  • boarded France on 16 July for a state visit to Saint Petersburg, Russia
  • @Sturmvogel 66: Hey sorry Surm for my late delay was busy irl. Anyway I asume that the new style calender is used in this sentence? I think we should add an old calender's date here, because in Russia they still used the Old one in 1914. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:40, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your usual thorough review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@CPA-5:--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:53, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

[edit]

Mostly nitpicks:

  • "part of the 1906 Naval Programme." - is that right?
    • Like the Germans, the French used naval laws to set construction programs for a dozen years or more. Preliminary discussions about the Courbets began in 1907, but with the usual French haste for action in this period...
  • Isn't "private ship" a specifically RN term?
    • Probably, but since I'm writing in BritEng, I think that I can be spared the liberty.
  • "When France declared war on Austria-Hungary..." - this is the same format as the beginning of the previous paragraph, and is a bit repetitive
    • Good catch.
  • You can drop Boué de Lapeyrère's first name on the second mention of him
    • I want readers to understand that this is the same person as the Navy Minister and not a relative.
  • Jordan & Caresse go into some detail about the crippling effects the coal shortage (and the crew transfers) had on French morale and overall readiness in 1917/18 - might be worth mentioning here. I think they say at one point only a couple of ships could be considered fit for combat.
    • I added the quote from Darrieus' report. Does that suffice? Or should I add the bit about only two ships being combat worthy as well?
  • "all of the Courbets assigned to the 1st Battle Squadron" - missing word here, I think?
    • Belike.
  • Link rear admiral
  • Sometimes you spell out "modele" and other times you abbreviate as "mle" - can you standardize one way or another?
  • I'm struggling to find a French admiral with Herve as a surname - is it perhaps Hervé de Penfentenyo instead? He'd have been a CA at the time
    • Possible, but why would Jordan & Caresse use his first name? Barring better information, I think I'd better stick with what the source says.
  • "the 360-millimetre (14.2 in) rear armour" - you don't need to convert this again
    • Good catch

Nice work as usual. Parsecboy (talk) 16:36, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing this so quickly, see if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • Use |upright= rather than fixed px size
  • File:Jean_Bart_Cuirasse_1913.png: why a life+70 tag if the author died in 1958? When/where was this first published?

Support from PM

[edit]

I reviewed this article at A-Class and had very little to nitpick about then. Parsecboy has already picked up on a couple of things that I noticed on a further read through. The sources are what you would expect for a French battleship of this vintage, and are all of high quality and reliable. No spotchecks done due to the nominator's long history at FAC. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:07, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Gog the Mild

[edit]
  • Is there a reason why protected cruiser is not linked on first mention in the main text?
    • I don't repeat links that are in the lede except in the case of very long articles.
  • "Kefalonia" and "Cephalonia"; both linked and both leading to Cephalonia.
    • Good catch
  • Link "occupation of Constantinople".
  • "and the parties of the Left". The upper case L looks a little odd. I would have expected either 'Parties of the Left' or, more likely, 'parties of the left'.
  • "the expense of a third refit like those her sisters received" Optional: "like" -> 'similar to'.
  • "and later raised for scrapping beginning on 14 December 1945" Optional: "beginning" -> ',which began'.

Digging a little deeper into the sources, I agree with PM67 that the sources used are all solidly reliable. The sources referred to seem to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them. I consider the sources to be current. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is.

  • I note that Dumas, Forsythe and Jordan & Moulin are given their full titles, while Whitley and Halpern are given their abbreviated titles. I am not aware of a Wiki-policy on this, but it seems inconsistent.
Gog the Mild (talk) 21:35, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review. I believe that I've addressed all of your comments; see if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sturm, spot on - of course. Supporting, and passing the source review.

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]
Not much, really.
  • "The Courbet-class ships carried enough coal and fuel oil to give them a range 4,200 nautical miles (7,800 km; 4,800 mi) at a speed of 10 knots (19 km/h; 12 mph).[5]" Should there be an "of" after "range"?
  • Indeed.
  • You are not consistent about whether you use a hyphen in "Vice Admiral".
  • Good catch.
  • Neither Dumas, nor Jordan & Caresse, really address the issue, but I strongly suspect that with the two Dunkerque-class battleships building and Jean Bart being the least modernized member of the oldest class of French battleships, it was really more a case of economics rather than actually being unfit for sea. Thanks for looking this over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:41, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support All looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/French_battleship_Jean_Bart_(1911)/archive1&oldid=901454950"