Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Guêpe-class submarine

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by 97198 (talk) 11:41, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Guêpe-class submarine

[edit]
(
)
  • Reviewed: Cuthbert Hilton Golding-Bird
  • Comment: If I'm honest, there is no source saying that the class was named after the wasp, but I assume it common knowledge; the word "Guêpe"'s only meaning in French is wasp

Created by L293D (talk). Self-nominated at 03:33, 5 December 2018 (UTC).

  • Article creation versus filing date okay. Article length is sufficient at 2051 B (342 words) readable prose size. Article sourcing and neutrality is okay. No indications of copyvio in the sources I've been looking at. No images to assess. Primary hook seems the best to me – concise and unusual. Hook neutrality is okay and hook sourcing has been verified online in the two books cited (although from what I see, the cite in the Domville-Fife book should be to page 77 not 86 ... maybe it's a different edition?).
  • However, the article doesn't really explore the hook aspect at all. Why was the boat's role limited to harbor defense – due to lack of size and range, or due to naval doctrine? Were harbor-defense-only submarines common to the era or was this unusual? A different page of the Domville-Fife, page 36, says that the first two submarines were intended for the defense of Brest. Was there anything about that harbor that made submarine-based defense especially advantageous? And did the class's eventual cancellation have to do with changes in doctrine regarding this mission, or something else? Looking at the Røksund book online, page 217, there does seem to have been a doctrinal dispute involved, as Pelletan had little interest in the offensive role that others in French naval circles saw for the submarine (but I haven't read further in the book). This is an interesting angle that merits inclusion in the article.
  • Also, unfortunately the QPQ is insufficient – in it one question was raised about whether a proposed hook was a joke (it was), but once the real hook emerged, the review was continued by others. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:02, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
  • @Wasted Time R: - I've done another QPQ at Template:Did you know nominations/Jauchzet, frohlocket! BWV 248 I, as well as change the page number to the edition available online. However, I don't believe "exploring the hook aspect" is part of the DYK criteria. Sure, it would be great if I could expand my article, but this is a cancelled class of small submarines, and there aren't a ton of sources. The DYK criteria states "a. The hook should include a definite fact that is mentioned in the article and interesting to a broad audience." The hook fact is mentioned and cited inline in my article. As to your individual questions, here are my answers: Why was the boat's role limited to harbor defense – due to lack of size and range, or due to naval doctrine? - the subs were designed to defend harbors, its not like they tried to build an ocean-going submarine, then realized it only had a range of a mile or two. I suppose they were designed to this due to naval doctrine, but I have no source for this, so adding it would be WP:OR. Were harbor-defense-only submarines common to the era or was this unusual? - I have never, ever seen similar subs anywhere on the internet or in museums, but this is only my conclusion and is OR. Was there anything about that harbor that made submarine-based defense especially advantageous? - Pelletan probably thought so, though I have access to no source that says that submarine-based harbor defense was particularly advantageous. And did the class's eventual cancellation have to do with changes in doctrine regarding this mission, or something else? - probably, because as soon as Pelletan got replaced, the subs were cancelled. But all of these answers are conclusion drawn by me, and are OR. L293D (☎ • ✎) 01:37, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
QPQ now satisfied, thanks. I understand about limited sources being available but I think the Røksund book, which represents recent scholarship, can be used in a non-OR way to briefly mention the question of the Guêpe design in relation to doctrinal issues surrounding the Jeune École. But yes this is is beyond the DYK criteria, so this nomination can now be considered passed. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:45, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Guêpe-class_submarine&oldid=875416425"