Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/French battleship Bouvet

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Gog the Mild (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 17:20, 18 December 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

French battleship Bouvet[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

French battleship Bouvet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I'll copy Sturmvogel with an ill-fated battleship of my own: Bouvet was the most successful of the so-called "fleet of experiments", even if that was a fairly low bar – the ship is perhaps best known for sinking in dramatic fashion during the Battle of 18 March, which, along with the loss of two other British battleships that day, prompted the French and British to decide to launch the Gallipoli campaign. Which went great. As we all remember. Anyway, thanks to all who take the time to review the article! Parsecboy (talk) 13:58, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]

  • There is an image error.

The rest will follow in the future. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:14, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • would not exceed 14,000 metric tons (14,000 long tons; 15,000 short tons) I do not believe we need short tons.
    • Fixed
  • to around 12,000 metric tons (12,000 long tons; 13,000 short tons) Same as above.
    • Fixed
  • on 20 May, and the navy awarded the contract for the ship on 8 October 1892 Navy as proper noun?
    • Done
  • Tonnes vs metric tons.
    • Fixed
  • She and her half-sisters nevertheless were disappointments Half-sisters? That's the first time I see this what do you mean by that?
    • Added a line on this
  • 31 officers and 591 enlisted men, though her as a flagship her crew grew to 41 officers and 651 enlisted men During peace- or wartimes?
    • Jordan & Caresse don't make a distinction
  • Bouvet had three vertical triple expansion engines --> "She had three vertical triple expansion engines"
    • Works for me
  • Bouvet could carry 610 t (600 long tons; 670 short tons) of coal, though additional space allowed for up to 980 t (960 long tons; 1,080 short tons) in total Remove short tons.
    • Done
  • steam for 3,000 nautical miles (5,600 km; 3,500 mi).[7][6][8] Re-oder the refs here.
    • Fixed
  • system consisted of four 400-ampere/80-volt dynamos --> "system consisted of four 400-ampere/(80 v) dynamos"?
    • Those aren't conversions of each other
  • consisted of two Canon de 305 mm Modèle 1893 guns No English units?
    • It's converted in the lead and Sturm would tell me to only convert it once ;)
  • aft and two Canon de 274 mm Modèle 1893 guns Same as above.
    • As above
  • Aegean coast of the Gallipoli peninsula on 1 March --> "Aegean coast of the Gallipoli Peninsula on 1 March"
    • Done

Looks good to me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:40, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Parsecboy: & @Sturmvogel 66: Also another thing because some commonwealth nations used hyphens in their ranks before and during WWII. My question is do your both, sources say the ranks with hyphen even it is an American source? If it is mixed what is the most used one or is there a rule in American English that ranks shouldn't be hyphened even the sources say so? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:56, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All right that's anything from me mate. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:38, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • I won't swear to it, but I believe that the RN uses the hyphen, but the USN doesn't. That said, I've seen British sources not use the hypen, although I think all the American ones don't.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:26, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sturmvogel 66: Can you confirm us whether the ranks in the Commonwealth are official? Because there are debates about the usage of the hyphens in the ranks in Commonwealth forces. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:36, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not at this moment. But you should be able to look it up yourself on the official RN page; I'm sure that they have one.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:49, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review Let's finish this one.

  • Cooper's ISSN doesn't match with its ref.
    • It does - it's just the generic entry for Proceedings - there isn't one for the specific volume (and for some reason, the one that comes up when you click the link has a starting year of 1971, but Proceedings is far older than that - but the older editions all have the same ISSN)
  • Corbett's both sources' titles don't match with their ISSNs?
    • Worldcat is frequently incomplete - they're both correct OCLC #s - actually, I know someone who works there, I ought to hassle them ;)
  • Palmer's year doesn't match with the OCLC one?
    • Same as Cooper's - it's just the starting year of publication.
  • All sources are reliable. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

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

  • kn→knots and link in the lead
    • Done
  • for Ottoman link Ottoman Empire
    • Done
  • suggest "amphibious assault on the Gallipoli peninsula"
    • Done
  • when the first displacement is converted in the Design section, lk=on
    • Done
  • rounding of the length, beam, draft, displacement and power between the infobox and body
    • Should be fixed
  • which crew numbers are being used in the infobox?
    • Good catch
  • " in total. aAt a cruising speed"
    • Fixed
  • the muzzle energy measurements seem inconsistent and a bit obscure, is there a link for foot-tons and kilonewtons (if used, link newton (unit))? And what is STf?
    • The problem is, I don't know what type of tons Cooper was using - I might just remove them
  • perhaps add that the Hotchkiss revolver cannon was a five-barreled job
    • Good idea
  • QF→quick-firing
    • It's explained the first time its used
  • you could put the mine capacity in the infobox
    • Done
  • is the lower belt range in the infobox right? What about the 200 mm lower edge of the main belt?
    • Fixed
  • perhaps state that Golfe-Juan is on the Côte d'Azur and link it?
    • Done
  • "one of the deck-mounted torpedo tubes"
    • Good catch
  • "and on their return to Toulon"
    • Fixed
  • "assisted the victims to recover"
    • Fixed
  • "The division had returned to France"
    • Done
  • first names for Marin-Darbel and Adam?
    • I got Marin-Darbel, but Adam is basically ungoogleable
  • "The next day, Admiral" and "sortie early the next day", perhaps "the following day" for the latter?
    • How about "the following morning"?
  • Group C?
    • Clarified
  • "...Goeben did not attempt to sortie" should probably say the Ottoman battlecruiser Yavuz Sultan Selim (formerly Goeben) as she had been transferred by then
    • How about "Goeben—which had by then been transferred to the Ottoman Navy as Yavuz Sultan Selim—"
  • on the islan of
    • Good catch
  • perhaps specify that the British battleships that attacked on 19 Feb were pre-dreadnoughts? It places the effort in better context, ie they weren't modern battleships that were being risked
    • Good idea
  • not sure about the italicisation of Hamidieh
    • Fine by me
  • "and werewas unknown to the Allies"
    • Fixed
  • "the battlecruiser Inflexible werewas damaged"
    • Done

That's it from me. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:26, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks PM. Parsecboy (talk) 18:02, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • I think that we can make a case that NH64442 was taken by an attaché so why isn't this one on Commons?
    • Mainly because I hate dealing with Commons, and if it's all the same to me if it's here instead of there, I'd rather just upload here. Also, I don't feel like having to argue the case in the ACR/FAC when the current setup is more or less not going to be questioned Except by you, apparently!
      • Nice to know that my efforts are appreciated!
  • On File:French battleship Charles Martel illustration.jpg I think I can make out the signature of Scott Grey or Gray. Have you searched to see if you can establish a date of death?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:51, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not so sure about Scott, but I can't tell what it is either - and nothing comes up for Scott Gray or Grey. Parsecboy (talk) 20:01, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough.
  • Good to go.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:16, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by AustralianRupert[edit]

Support: G'day, Nate, nice work as usual. Not a lot stood out to me. I have only a few minor comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 23:53, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • there are no duplicate or dab links, and the external links work (no action required)
  • the infobox information matches the prose (no action required)
  • referencing seems sufficient for A-class (no action required)
  • the ships went to Sigri on the island of Lesbos --> "the ships sailed to Sigri on the island of Lesbos"?
    • Works for me
  • The first stage of the attack --> I wasn't sure that this was sufficiently introduced. Perhaps a sentence could be added before this briefly explaining the plan to force the straits with naval power?
    • Added a bit to clarify what the intention was
  • capitalisation: "Naval Operations: To The Battle of the Falklands, December 1914" --> "Naval Operations: To the Battle of the Falklands, December 1914"?
    • Fixed
  • capitalisation: "Naval Operations: From The Battle of the Falklands to the Entry of Italy Into the War in May 1915" -- same as above
    • Fixed
  • I think the Commons link should be moved down one section per MOS:LAYOUT (links to sister projects)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/French_battleship_Bouvet&oldid=931393665"