Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of battleships of France/archive1

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 22:03:48 8 December 2019 (UTC) [1].

List of battleships of France

[edit]

List of battleships of France (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 19:32, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This list comprises the battleships built by France between the late 1880s and the 1940s, and is the capstone of another subtopic of WP:OMT. The list passed a Milhist A-class review in August and should be in pretty good shape. Thanks to all who take the time to review it. Parsecboy (talk) 19:32, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]
  • That's odd - I was wondering if it was something to do with the fact that it was a .tiff file and not a .jpg or .png, but if it's working in the Bouvet article, then that can't be it. Parsecboy (talk) 11:59, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot of tables use "kn" and others "knots" maybe try to standardise them?
    • Think I've got them
  • Metric horsepower in the table Masséna, link it.
    • Done
  • it difficult to stay within the 11,000-ton limit while incorporating What kind of ton? Or doesn't the source say it?
    • It's already specified earlier in the paragraph
  • The six Dantons remained based at Corfu and Malta for much of the war First are speaking about the island of Malta or the group of islands? Second, if we are talking about the group of islands then we should use the Crown Colony's link.
    • No, just the island - linked to Malta (island)
  • as the total tonnage exceeded the 70,000 tons allowed before the building holiday What kind of ton? Or doesn't the source say it?
    • It's the same 70,000-long-ton limit as mentioned in the Dunkerque section
  • In the Alsace class's table at the armour part please use an em dash like the rest of empty parts.
    • Whoops - guess I forgot to put that field in.

That's anything that I could find I probably forgot one, but I re-read it for a couple of times so it shouldn't be striking to my eyes. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:54, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks CPA. Parsecboy (talk) 23:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@CPA-5: - anything left you'd like me to address? Parsecboy (talk) 21:27, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

[edit]

I went through this in detail at Milhist ACR, and really couldn't find a lot there. In general, this is a fine list, and despite the views of some about extended prose in the introduction of a list, the five para lead is entirely justified to put the list into proper context. I have a few comments, mainly from comparing the list to the class and ship articles:

  • "intentionally sank the fleet" in the lead makes it seem like they fired on their own ships. Suggest "scuttled the fleet"
    • Works for me
  • Brennus' armour says 460 mm, but the article says 400 mm, and her displacement is rounded up from what is provided in her article, speed and power also vary from the article, also not sure about where the commissioned date is coming from?
  • not for this list, but the laid down date in the infobox of Jauréguiberry doesn't reflect the body
    • Fixed that article
  • there is definitely something up with Bouvet's image. All I get is a thumb-box with the caption, no image shown
  • not for this list, but the Charlemagne-class infobox says the belt was 320, when it was actually 400
    • Fixed
  • the Charlemagne-class article table says 15 October 1897 for Charlemagne's commissioning
    • Apparently there's a discrepancy between the class and the ship article - this is another question for Sturm, since he wrote both of those.
  • the Saint Louis laid down and commissioned dates don't match the class article table, same for the Gaulois commissioned date

My eyes are spinning, down to Iéna, more to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, imagine writing it ;) Parsecboy (talk) 12:09, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Iéna's article says speed was 18 kn and the power here doesn't match the article either
    • These figures are from Jordan & Caresse; since Caresse wrote the Warship International articles Sturm used to write both of Wiki's, I have to assume he corrected an earlier mistake.
  • the power in Suffren's article isn't what is here
    • As above
  • the République class article has a range for full load displacement, but this list uses as designed?
    • Fixed
  • with the Liberté class, suggest giving the full dates in the table where known, rather than just the months for some
    • Done
  • the Danton class displacement is the standard one, not the deep load one, is that right? Also, the class article says shaft horsepower rather than metric horsepower here, with a commensurate difference in kW
    • Yes - J&C don't give the full load, and there doesn't seem to be a citation for it in the class article. And as above for the HP figure
  • wasn't the Bretagne class belt armour 270 mm? Also the class article gives the full load displacement as 26,000 tons, not 26,600 tones, the speed is 20 kn in the class article, and the class article has the power as 29,000 shp
    • These are all the figures per J&C - that article needs to be rewritten, and at some point Sturm and I will get to it
  • the Normandie class article says the belt was 300 mm, also there is a zero missing from the power, my whippersnipper has more grunt...
    • Fixed
  • the Lyon class power doesn't match the class article
    • Fixed the class article
  • the Richelieu class belt should be 327 mm and the displacement doesn't match the class article
    • Fixed

That's me done, these are mainly transcription errors by the look of them, unless the class articles aren't right. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:17, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Peacemaker. Parsecboy (talk) 15:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Stuvmvogel_66

[edit]
  • If the repair of Strasbourg is notable enough for the lead, so should that of Provence.
    • A fair point
  • Link main battery and turret in the lede. In Brennus, centerline, scrap. In Charles Martel: reserve
    • The first is linked in the 2nd paragraph, linked turret and the rest
  • There's some duplication between the Brennus material and the first para of the lede. I'd recommend that some of the detail in the latter be removed.
  • Why are you converting CV into ihp/shp? They're close enough together that I think that a better conversion would be CV into kW like in the articles on the ships.
    • My reasoning was that if readers are familiar with ships, they're more than likely used to seeing things in ihp/shp, not kW
      • We have been converting ihp/shp to kW in all the individual ship articles, so why different now?
        • In my experience, figures are almost always given in sources measured in ihp/shp, not kW, so it makes more sense to me to convert from CV to ihp/shp, to make it easier for readers to make apples to apples comparisons.
  • There should be a link to the article on the Allied effort to pressure the Greeks in the République section
    • Do we have an article on it? Or are you thinking about the National Schism or Noemvriana articles?
      • The latter is close enough, IMO.
        • Done
  • Down to the dreadnoughts, desperately in need of a nap, more later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Take a snooze, old man!
  • Link amidships
    • Done
  • the British Home Fleet and later to French Indochina missing word?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:00, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Image review

[edit]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • "Convinced of the need to follow suit with dreadnoughts of their own, the four Courbets were ordered in 1910 and the three Bretagnes followed in 1912." This is ungrammatical. You have to say they or the French ordered.
    • Good catch
  • "as World War I forced the French to cancel the Normandie and Lyon classes". This is not logical. Surely war is often a reason to increase warship construction, as with the Americans in WW2. If construction for the land war took priority, you should say so. PS I see you clarify this below, but a few words here would be helpful.
    • Done
  • "Illustration of Charles Martel underway" Is it really an illustration? It looks to me like a photo.
    • Yeah, it's an illustration of some sort - look at the bottom right corner - there's a signature I can't make out - something Gray or Grey, it looks like.
  • Was the poor seaworthiness of the five early ships due to the specifications laid down by the naval command or bad design by the architects?
    • Probably more the latter than the former, but both have their share of the blame - the fundamental problem was insufficient displacement for what the command wanted the ships to be able to do - this was fairly common in the period - the American Indiana-class battleships, built at about the same time, were also badly overloaded. And the displacement issue was generally imposed by legislatures that were at the time unwilling to spend vast sums on fleets of battleships (this was before Mahan had really caught on). With these ships specifically, the lozenge arrangement was pretty stupid, given the effective duplication of weight to carry four guns in four turrets instead of in two turrets - that was, as far as I'm aware, a fault of the designers, not the command's specifications.
  • "The Minister of the Navy, Auguste Burdeau, instructed the naval design staff to prepare a new battleship proposal" When?
    • Added the year
  • You use different weight conversions - e.g. Bouvet {{cvt|12200|t|LT|0}}, new weight limit {{cvt|11000|t|LT}}, Charlemagne {{convert|11275|MT|LT}}. I think you should be consistent.
    • Tonnes and metric tons are the same - dunno why that one got specified to the American spelling (especially since it should have been abbreviated, and both variations use "t").
  • "The Board of Construction requested an improved version of the Charlemagne class" When?
    • Clarified
  • " but Patrie remained in service 1919" "until 1919"?
    • Fixed
  • "the center turret inflicted excessive blast damage on the superstructure". I do not understand this. Do you mean if the turret is hit by enemy fire?
    • No - when guns (of any size, but the effect is of course magnified the larger you go) are fired, there is are blast and flash effects as the projectile and propellant gasses exit the muzzle, and these can cause damage to things that are too close (imagine standing too close to this, or note the concussion demonstrated here) - ship superstructures are generally fairly lightly built to minimize weight high in the ship (since that can cause stability problems) so they're vulnerable to the concussion of guns fired too closely.
  • A first rate list. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:13, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:10, 4 December 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://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_battleships_of_France/archive1&oldid=1073368427"