Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/République-class battleship/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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 28 February 2021 [1].

République-class battleship[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 22:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article covers a pair of battleships built as part of a large naval program aimed at countering German naval expansion. They were largely repeated with the four Liberté class, and both designs marked a major increase in size and power over earlier French battleships. Both ships saw service during World War I, but little actual combat, and both were reduced to secondary roles by 1919. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 22:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "but Patrie lingered on in her training duties". Maybe "duties" → 'role'?
    • Sounds good to me
  • "when she was decommissioned and sold for scrap the following year". I don't think that grammatically you can have "when" referring to 1936, then "and ... the following year."
    • Good point - I've split the sentence
  • "which marked a significant expansion of the fleet". Suggest 'their fleet'.
    • Done
  • "Bertin was now in a position"> Delete "now".
    • Done
  • "15,000 t (15,000 long tons)". This is to a different level of accuracy to your earlier convertion.
    • Fixed
  • "and the standard main armament of four 305 mm (12 in) guns in two twin-gun turrets was specified". Was this also to "ensure passage through the Suez Canal"?
    • No - split the sentence
  • "on 9 December the parliament approved". "the parliament" seems an odd usage - this may be only to me. Perhaps 'the French parliament' or just 'parliament'?
    • Deleted "the"
  • "was to have fulfilled the specified number of six new battleships". That is ungrammatical. (And repetitous.)
    • Reworded, see how that works
  • "though these are sometimes considered to be a sub-class of the République class rather than a distinct class of its own". You switch from "these" to "its". Try 'though these are sometimes considered to be a sub-class of the République class rather than a distinct class of its their own'.
    • Fixed
  • What's an average draft?
    • Draft can vary depending on the loading; I don't know exactly what this figure corresponds to (perhaps loading under normal peacetime conditions, where only part of the fuel and ammunition would be carried? The source doesn't clarify, unfortunately)
  • "with République reaching ... 19,898 metric horsepower (19,626 ihp) and Patrie ... 18,107 metric horsepower". 1. Is in known what the design output was? 2. Is any reason known for the discrepancy between the two ships? Nearly 10%!
    • The design power is in the previous sentence - 17,500 metric hp. As to the difference, I can't say, exactly; the ships' engines differed slightly (R's were 4-cylinder VTE and P's were 3-cylinder), which may explain it
  • "and was fired at a muzzle velocity of" → 'which was fired at a muzzle velocity of'.
    • Done
  • "the gun was no longer suitable for use against the latest torpedo boats". Optional: "suitable" → 'adequate'.
    • Sounds good
  • "Cofferdam": 1. could this be linked to the Naval architecture section? 2. Any chance of a brief in line explanation? It is not a common expression and it breaks concentration to have to follow the Wikilink.
    • Done
  • "A heavily armored tube that was 200 mm thick"> Was the tube or the armour 200 mm thick?
    • Reworded
  • "it was reduced to 20 mm on two layers of". "on" → 'of'.
    • No, the total thickness was 40mm, 20 of armor plate on top of two 10mm layers of mild steel
  • "Tests to determine whether the main battery turrets could be modified to increase the elevation of the guns (and hence their range) proved to be impossible". The tests proved to be impossible? (Which is how it reads now.) Or the tests proved that increasing the elevation was impossible?
    • Reworded
  • "the ships received two". Two each?
    • Yes
In which case suggest 'the ships each received two' for clarity.
Done
  • "reinforce the Dardanelles Division fighting Ottoman forces in the Gallipoli campaign; she provided gunfire support to Allied troops fighting ashore". I think that the second "fighting" could be deleted as a given.
    • Done
  • "until they were forced to evacuate"> "forced" seems a bit PoV. Is that the consensus of historians?
    • I guess it depends on your definition of "forced" - were the Ottomans threatening to push them into the sea? No. But the Allied command had realized by that point that, for a number of reasons, nothing could be achieved by continuing to fight the campaign (apart from uselessly wasting their own soldiers' lives)
It was rhetorical. Maybe 'until they were evacuated' or similar?
Works for me.
  • "and renamed Yavuz Sultan Selim" → 'and been renamed Yavuz Sultan Selim'.
    • Done
  • No page range for Caresse?

I enjoyed that. You packed in a lot of technical information in a fairly digestible way. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Parsecboy, just a reminder. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Gog, sorry for the delay, it's been a bit busy around here lately. Parsecboy (talk) 21:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I was concerned that you may have forgotten about it or something silly. A couple of responses to your responses above. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from WereSpielChequers[edit]

Support. Nicely done, agree with Gog re digestible technical information.

  • After all the talk about the German Naval Law, both ships served in the Med. I would have thought it made sense to mention the Entente Cordiale and the reason why French policy changed.
    • A very good idea - I've added a bit on this, but am not entirely sure it's in the right place (I considered putting it in the design section). What do you think?
      • Thanks, I think you make the point well, I don't see it belonging in the design section. ϢereSpielChequers 16:14, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the timing, was that flu the Spanish flu? If so some mention of the death toll would be merited if possible.
    • It' probably a WP:BLUE sort of thing, but I can't find any confirmation that it was the Spanish flu. I've added the death toll but left further details at the Patrie page.
      • Thanks for looking and for adding the death toll. ϢereSpielChequers 16:14, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is some mention of coal bunkers as part of the armour protection, do you have more detail on that aspect of the design?
    • No, unfortunately - Jordan and Caresse don't go into any detail on that. There are a couple of drawings (similar to this that show the layout, but unless you want something crudely done in MS Paint, I can't help there ;)
      • Thanks for looking, obviously we don't need to go further than the sources. Maybe sometime in the future a better source will arrive. ϢereSpielChequers 16:14, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ϢereSpielChequers 18:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks WSQ, I always find your reviews helpful (particularly in finding things I've left out because I know them). Parsecboy (talk) 12:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're very welcome. I was wondering if you could add a sentence or two on the colour scheme, especially as the pictures show it changing. Is File:Battleship Republique illustration.png in peacetime colours and the image in the next section war time? ϢereSpielChequers 16:14, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jordan & Caresse have an appendix on general paint schemes - I'll add a line or two from that. Parsecboy (talk) 22:15, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, works for me. ϢereSpielChequers 17:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Spotchecks not done

  • "Both ships entered service with the fleet in January 1907" - source?
    • January is wrong - removed
  • The infobox indicates 16 x 65mm, text says 13 - which is correct?
    • 13 - fixed
  • The Commons template is overlapping with footnotes
    • There must have been a change somewhere - that used to work, but it seems to be using the first template to determine the space available for footnotes. I've flipped them, which appears to have fixed it
  • FN27 title doesn't match that at source link. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:48, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed, good catch. Thanks as always, Nikki. Parsecboy (talk) 12:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hog Farm[edit]

Claiming, hope to get to soon. Might claim for WikiCup points. Hog Farm Talk 16:54, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "They carried a similar offensive armament of four 305 mm (12 in) guns and eighteen 164 mm (6.5 in) guns, though most of the 164 mm guns were now mounted in more flexible gun turrets rather than in casemates, and they had a much more effective armor protection arrangement that remedied the tendency of earlier battleships to lose stability from relatively minor damage." - Split this very long sentence.
    • Done
  • I'm confused by where the range of 1907-1924 for in commission in the infobox. Shouldn't the end date be 1936?
    • Good catch
  • " the conning tower was too small to accommodate the crew, the bridge wings obstructed views aft, which forced the commander to leave the safety of the armored conning tower to see all around the ship" - Missing an "and", as there's only two items listed here?
    • Fixed
  • "At the outbreak of war in August 1914, the French fleet was mobilized " - Name WWI here.
    • Done

Looks good beyond that to me. Hog Farm Talk 18:47, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hog Farm. Parsecboy (talk) 20:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting on 1a, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, 2c, 4, and source reliablity. Did not check against other criteria. Hog Farm Talk 01:30, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

All images look like they are correctly licenced and in good places. No ALT text as far as I can see. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review[edit]

The ships table needs row and column scopes and a caption per MOS:DTAB. The images also need alt text as noted above. Heartfox (talk) 01:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have added both. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 20:54, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66[edit]

  • Jordan & Caresse generally suffices for the last para of the design section, but you need to add some authors who don't consider it a sub-class
    • Good catch - Conway's should suffice for that point
  • was 280 mm (11 in) amidships Tall, high or thick?
    • Fixed
  • main belt armor hyphen between main and belt; the same for "main battery"
    • Done
  • 10 mm (0.39 in) plating made of what?
    • Clarified
  • at the bow and stern. The belt terminated close to the stern Contradictory
    • Fixed
  • it extended all the way forward to the stem. It extended proximity alert for "extended"
    • Fixed
  • demonstrated that the proposal could not be carried out, awkward
    • See how I've reworded it.
  • When converting from meters, it's best to output in yards rather than feet to match the sources--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:23, 16 February 2021 (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://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/République-class_battleship/archive1&oldid=1073369627"