Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/French battleship Courbet (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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 23:22, 24 January 2019 [1].

French battleship Courbet (1911)[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:51, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Courbet 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. Between the wars, she was extensively modernized, but not enough that the French didn't use her as a training ship during the 1930s. After bombarding Rommel's 7th Panzer as it approached Cherbourg, France, she sailed to Britain where she was seized by Perfidious Albion a few weeks later. They used her as a target ship before she was sunk as a breakwater off the Normandy beaches in 1944. The article recently passed a MilHist A-class review and I believe it to meet the FAC criteria. That said, I hope that reviewers will catch any infelicitous prose and unexplained jargon that might remain.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:51, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Cas Liber[edit]

Taking a look now...

  • I'd put the date she was launched in the lead - it does look odd that there is "(1911)" in title but then is 1914 in lead...
    • I don't think that it confuses readers as you're the first person ever to say anything about that sort of thing in any of my ship reviews.
  • After the war ended on 11 November, Courbet and her sisters returned in succession to Toulon for a refit; - why "in succession"?
    • I was trying to establish that they were refitted one after another, but it's really not relevant to the ship's history. So deleted.
  • The first sentence in the World War II is pretty long. I'd split it.
    • Done.

Otherwise reads well. I am not an expert in the area but there don't appear to be any glaring gaps. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Moise[edit]

Hi Sturmvogel. I'll start a review of this article in the next few days. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 15:20, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(First read-through) Background and description:

  • "By 1909 the French Navy was finally convinced of the superiority of the all-big-gun battleship like HMS Dreadnought over the mixed-calibre designs like the Danton class which had preceded the Courbets." There may be missing context here. Why "finally" and what had been their reasoning for taking the opposite point of view until then? Moisejp (talk) 04:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Previous doctrine used a mix of a few slow-firing, heavy-hitting guns to penetrate armor and lots of lighter, faster-firing guns to damage everything else. Problem was that the latter were becoming larger themselves and misses were harder to distinguish from the main armament, so controlling them was more difficult. This will have to be discussed in more detail in the class article as it's not really relevant to this ship's history.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, how about at least removing the word "finally"? It gives the sentence a possible subjective feel, and it raises questions for the reader that are not answered within the article itself. Moisejp (talk) 05:41, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right that it does sort of invite a deeper discussion of the topic. Good idea.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Construction and career:

  • "The ship was ordered on 11 August 1910[7] and named after Admiral Amédée Courbet." Feels like a bit sudden introduction to the subject, as the ship hasn't been mentioned yet in the main text, and until now there has only been mention of the Courbet class of ships in general. Possibly in this sentence you could say something like "A lead ship for the Courbet class was ordered on..." Or "Courbet, the lead ship for the Courbet class, was ordered on..." By the way, is it common for classes of ships and their lead ship to have the same name? This could be confusing for laypeople like me, and if there is clarifying info about this that you could include in a footnote, it could be helpful. Moisejp (talk) 05:08, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added her name to the beginning of the Construction and career section to better orient the reader. The description section is intended to be generic for all the articles about the ships in the class, with only differences being specifically called out, as they were for Courbet's boilers in the first paragraph of the section. The class name is usually, but not always, the name of the first ship laid down or launched. Some classes have a theme or all use the same letter of the alphabet like A-class destroyer or Weapon-class destroyer.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • May I recommend "The ship Courbet..." to begin the sentence so it is clearer you are moving away from discussion of the class to the individual ship? Also, how about a footnote saying that the class name is usually the name of the first ship laid down or launched? As I mentioned above, this would be less confusing for people who don't know much about ships. If you can't find a source that says so explicitly, another option would be to say in the footnote: "The ship Courbet was the first ship launched in the Courbet class. Other examples where a class name is the same as the first of its ships are XXX, YYY, and ZZZ." That way readers can understand there's a trend behind it. Moisejp (talk) 05:57, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dunno, all that's explained in the lead ship article. I don't think it's something that needs to be elaborately explained in an individual ship article as people can simply click on the term if they want more detailed information.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see. I didn't click on the lead ship link, and it didn't occur me that the answer would be there. I guess for ship enthusiasts it's more obvious. In any case, okay, I'm satisfied enough with your explanation to let this point go. Moisejp (talk) 18:31, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your replies. I’ll take a closer look at them and type up some more comments soon. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 20:15, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

World War 1:

  • May I suggest a wiki-link for metropolitan France? I didn't know what it meant, maybe other readers don't either. Moisejp (talk) 06:20, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good idea.
  • "On 1 July the Armée Navale was reorganised with Courbet, Paris and Jean Bart assigned to the 2nd Division of the 1st Squadron on 1 July." It looks like one instance of "on 1 July" needs to be removed. Moisejp (talk) 05:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interwar years:

  • "On 1 July 1919, the Armée Navale was disbanded and replaced by the Eastern (Escadre de la Méditerranée orientale) and Western Mediterranean Squadrons (Escadre de la Méditerranée occidentale)". The French-in-parentheses is after just "Eastern" in the first instance, but after the whole phrase "Western Mediterranean Squadrons" in the second instance. May I suggest one of the two solutions below for a parallel structure:
  • On 1 July 1919, the Armée Navale was disbanded and replaced by the Eastern (Escadre de la Méditerranée orientale) and Western (Escadre de la Méditerranée occidentale) Mediterranean Squadrons, or
  • On 1 July 1919, the Armée Navale was disbanded and replaced by the Eastern Mediterranean Squadron (Escadre de la Méditerranée orientale) and its Western counterpart (Escadre de la Méditerranée occidentale). Moisejp (talk) 05:22, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I like it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

World War II:

  • ”After the beginning of World War II in September 1939, Courbet and Paris continued training until after the German invasion of France on 10 May 1940.” Two instances of after in the sentence. May I suggest “From the beginning of World War II...” Moisejp (talk) 02:26, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I like it. Do you think it would be better combined with the following sentence as per PM's suggestion below or is it better in its current state?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest not combining the two sentences. Actually one of the comments I was planning to make in this review is that a few sentences in the article are a little on the long side. I'll identify the few I was thinking of in a future comment, after I finish looking at your current replies. Moisejp (talk) 18:24, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look at your replies and finish my review soon—hopefully will have time this weekend. Thanks! Moisejp (talk) 05:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Final comment:

  • I mentioned above there may be instances of sentences that are possibly too long, but re-reading now I only found the following that really jumped out at me. Would you consider breaking it up?
  • "Aside from a brief bombardment of Austro-Hungarian coastal fortifications defending the Bay of Cattaro on 1 September to discharge the unfired shells remaining in the guns after sinking Zenta, and several uneventful sorties into the Adriatic, the 1st Naval Army spent most of its time cruising between the Greek and Italian coasts[11] to prevent the Austro-Hungarian fleet from attempting to break out of the Adriatic." Moisejp (talk) 19:32, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

This article is in great shape. I have a few comments:

  • in the lead "that same month" isn't closely enough associated with August 1914 in the text. I suggest "She helped to sink the Austro-Hungarian protected cruiser SMS Zenta[Note 1] that same month, and spent the war in the Mediterranean."
  • I think Note 1 is unnecessary in the lead, most readers will assume it is a ship prefix used for Austro-Hungarian ships.
  • after introduction, should Boué de Lapeyrère just be Lapeyrère per the usual treatment of the German "von"?
    • I don't think so as I believe that they're more a like hyphenated surname in English. Jordan and Caresse use the full version consistently, so I've followed their practice.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:48, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "them a range of 4,200"
  • suggest "which were mounted singly in casemates in the hull"
  • the TT conversions don't match between the body and infobox
  • where were the TTs located?
    • Added.
  • Boué de Lapeyrère is the same one that was the Minister? Perhaps explain that he retired as Minister and returned to sea service as a Vice Admiral, as when I read it I assumed he was a brother or something until I went to his article to check.
  • suggest 1st Squadron→1st Battle Squadron for clarity, there is another example
  • rather than sometimes use the French name for a unit and sometimes use the English, I suggest sticking to one or the other. ie 1st Naval Army and 1ère Armée Navale/Armée Navale
    • Yeah, I hadn't realized that I'd switched between them so often.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "cruiser Zenta in off Antivari,"
  • comma after "after sinking Zenta" to break up the sentence
  • the italicisation of the guns irks me for some reason, particularly when there is barely any French involved, or it is mainly an acronymn ie 75 mm (3.0 in) Mle 1891 G. The article titles aren't italicised, so I don't think the links should be.
  • do we have a first name for Charlier? Redlink given he was an admiral?
    • No, one of the frustrating things about Jordan & Caresse is that they have a list of all the admirals who used the ships as flagships with dates, but no first names.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:48, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "2nd Battle Division" if that's right?
    • The French Navy didn't differentiate them at all, unlike squadrons which were "du ligne", etc. Usage is inconsistent. An OB for 1914 didn't have them, but one for 1920 did, so perhaps things changed. At any rate, I've decided to standardize on Battle Division, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • do we know where she underwent her 1920–1921 refit? Toulon?
    • Oddly enough, it seems that I confused Courbet with some other ship for this bit.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:43, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • some guns aren't linked, and I can't find an article on them. Redlink them?
    • I think that I found enough inferences elsewhere to link them to existing guns, though the best sources don't have anything on either.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • just for consistency, perhaps No. 2 turret→forward superfiring turret?
    • Not my preferred solution, but since I have no idea how the French designated the wing turrets, it will have to do.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "After the beginning of World War II in September 1939, Courbet and Paris continued training, but following the German invasion of France of 10 May, they were mobilised on 21 May 1940 with augmented crews and assigned to the command of Vice-Admiral Jean-Marie Abrial for the defence of the French ports on the English Channel."
    • That's originally how I had it, but one of the ACR reviewers suggested that that was too long a sentence.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest " by the Allies during Operation Aerial."
  • suggest "Dambuster Raid, also known as Operation Chastise."
  • suggest stating that she was successfully scuttled as a breakwater (if that is what happened) and what landing beach she was scuttled off?

That's me done on primary review. I'll also take a separate look at the sources etc. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:41, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks for the thorough review. I think that I've covered all of your comments, so see if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:43, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • No worries, it is always a pleasure reviewing one of yours. Hopefully some improvements have resulted. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:40, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

All the sources used are of high quality and reliable, and what one would expect on a French ship of this vintage. Formatting looks fine. Spotchecks not conducted (AGF'ed given Sturm's long history at FAC). My main queries relate to the Further reading section, in that two articles specifically about this class haven't been used as sources, and that the latter Gardiner and Chesneau source doesn't have anything extra to say. For that reason I'm wondering if this is actually comprehensive in terms of reflecting the available scholarship on this ship. I am also left wondering about what relevance to this ship the Curtis source has? Finally, the EL - is netmarine.net reliable? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:02, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See my respons on the article's ACR
I think that netmarine.net is reliable because it's not generally editable and doesn't appear to be the work of any one person. But the key thing is the photo of the monument commemorating Courbet's service at Normandy which acts to further confirm the dates on which she was attacked, etc.
I've deleted Conways as its more of a general reference.
Thanks for looking this over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:55, 15 January 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_article_candidates/French_battleship_Courbet_(1911)/archive1&oldid=880045576"