Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/French battleship Bretagne

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 Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 22:20, 5 February 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

French battleship Bretagne[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Parsecboy (talk)

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

Toolbox

Bretagne 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. Between the wars, she was extensively modernized and remained in 1st-line service. She was briefly deployed in search of German commerce raiders and blockade runners after the start of World War II. The ship blew up when Perfidious Albion attacked the French fleet in mid-1940 to prevent it from falling into the hands of the Germans. Parsecboy and I have extensively reworked the article recently and we believe that it meets the A-class standards. We'd like reviewers to look for any stray AmEng and unexplained jargon in preparation for an eventual FAC.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:06, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]

Greetings Sturm and Parsecboy great article, I hope this would get A-class, but, I have some little issues in this page. Shall we start?

  • "The ships were powered by two license-built Parsons steam turbine sets, each driving two propeller shafts." American English "license".
    • Fixed
  • "After entering service in 1916, she was assigned to the 1st Division (1ère Division) of the 1st Battle Squadron (1ère Escadre de ligne) and became flagship of Vice Admiral (Vice-amiral) Dominique-Marie Gauchet" American English "Vice Admiral" no hyphen?
    • I don't know that the hyphen is used as a general rule in British English (or if it is, Vice admiral (Royal Navy) needs to be renamed!)
  • @Parsecboy: Well I don't think it's a general rule. It's like the same as the "artefact" and the "artifact" or the "draught" and the "draft" things in British English. Both can be used in British English however like in the vice-admiral thing "artefact" and "draught" are the most British used. Because Americans don't use them and some(times almost all) Brits use them. I also find out that the Royal Navy itself use vice-admiral instead of vice admiral. [1] Cheers CPA-5 (talk) 07:40, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair emough - I've changed them over. Parsecboy (talk) 11:10, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A Vickers fire-control director that was equipped with a 3.66-metre (12 ft 0 in)" is the "0 in" that important, if not please remove it, I don't think it is that necessarily.
    • Fixed
  • "Bretagne became flagship of the Mediterranean Squadron on 6 June 1921 when Vice Admiral Henri Salaun hoisted his flag aboard her." again, no hyphen?
    • See above
  • "The two French battleships had a gunnery exercise on 28 June using the Austro-Hungarian battleship Prinz Eugen as a target and sank her." this happend in 1922, so I suggest to add "former" before Austro-Hungarian this would make "The two French battleships had a gunnery exercise on 28 June using the former Austro-Hungarian battleship Prinz Eugen as a target and sank her."
    • Done
  • "A pair of 4.57-metre (15 ft 0 in) rangefinders were added on the conning tower roof, another one in the DCT at the top of the foremast and another at the base of the mainmast." again is the "0 in" necessarily?
    • Nope
  • "Prime Minister Winston Churchill therefore ordered Vice Admiral James Somerville, the commander of Force H, to neutralise the French fleet at Mers-el-Kébir." again no hyphen?
    • As above
  • " Later that year Navy Minister Alphonse Gasnier-Duparc reviewed the combined Atlantic and Mediterranean Squadrons on 27 May after that year's fleet maneuvers." American English "maneuvers".
    • Fixed
  • I see two models of Britsh English like -ise and -ize which one do you use in this page?
  • "Prime Minister Winston Churchill therefore ordered Vice Admiral James Somerville, the commander of Force H, to neutralise the French fleet at Mers-el-Kébir."
  • This is correct
  • "At 17:09 a large explosion occurred in the ship and she rolled over and capsized with the loss of 36 officers, 151 petty officers and 825 seamen."
  • As far as I'm aware, capsize keeps the "z" in both British and American English
  • "On 1 October, Bretagne was decommissioned in anticipation of a modernization that began on 1 July 1932."
  • Same as above - I'm pretty sure it keeps the "z"
  • "After the modernization was completed on 12 November 1934, Bretagne was working up until she left Toulon on 11 May 1935 to join her sisters in the 2nd Division (2e Division) of the 2nd Battle Squadron (2e Escadre de ligne) for maneuvers off the Azores." (also American maneuvers).
  • Fixed the maneuvers, modernization is correct
  • @Parsecboy: Greetings Parsecboy, Oxford Dictionaries [2], Cambridge Dictionary [3] and even Merriam-Webster [4] told me that the word "modernisation" is a British English word. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:51, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Learn something new every day - all fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 13:18, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The ship was significantly modernised in the 1920s and 1930s, and conducted normal peace-time cruises and training maneuvers in the Mediterranean and the Atlantic Ocean." (also American maneuvers).
  • As above, modernised but modernization
  • "Provence after her 1934 modernization" in the "File:Provence-1.jpg" image.
  • As above
  • "Both 75 mm anti-aircraft (AA) guns were replaced by four 75 mm modèle 1918 AA guns mounted amidships." I would remove the "anti-aircraft (AA)" to the sentence "The 47 mm modèle 1902 guns were replaced by a pair of Canon de 75 mm (3.0 in) modèle 1897 guns on anti-aircraft mounts in 1918.".
    • Done
  • "Sub-caliber training" --> "Sub-calibre training" Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:30, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed
  • The 47 mm modèle 1902 guns were replaced by a pair of Canon de 75 mm (3.0 in) modèle 1897 guns on anti-aircraft (AA) mounts in 1918. the "0" isn't necessarily.
    • Done.
  • The note should have a citation. CPA-5 (talk) 21:10, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why? It merely informs the reader of the times used in the article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:26, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sturmvogel 66: Good question you ask. I'll give you an answer. I have never heard that the UK's time was an hour ahead in WWII until now. So it is a little bit odd to see this IMO of course, I just found out that there was indeed a period in the UK when it used "British Double Summer Time" during WWII. But I think this could confuse the reader especially people (like me) who didn't know the "British Double Summer Time" thing. So could you use a citation to support the "British Double Summer Time" in the note? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:48, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh? France is in CET, not UTC. It's a simple time zone issue that doesn't require a citation, in my opinion - along the lines of WP:BLUE. Parsecboy (talk) 21:54, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that it doesn't need a cite, but I've clarified it with a link to British Double Summer Time.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:59, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well that's an other solution. Works fine for me. Cheers.
  • The second shell struck above the waterline, and detonated in the center engine room, killing all but one of the sailors inside. "American center".
  • And this is why I don't like to write articles in BrEng - I'm not so great at finding the AmEng ;) Parsecboy (talk) 23:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully this would help the article and you both. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 22:43, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, CPA! Parsecboy (talk) 16:50, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that's everything what I could find. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This looks great. I'll give you my support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 07:03, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:French_battleship_Bretagne_NH_55630.tiff: when/where was this first published?
    • I don't know, but the NHHC's position is that photos in their collection are in the PD unless otherwise noted. I would wager this was almost certainly taken by Neeser, and thus would be a work of the US government, but they don't credit him specifically.
  • File:Bretagne_October_1916_Q58294.jpg: if this was created by a French photographer, why is it UKGov? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:37, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure the IWM page is correct. The photo is also in the NHHC collection (see here), and there are several that appear to be from the same set (for example, here, taken by a Robert W. Neeser, who was a USN officer and was active as a photographer in France during and after the war. He had amassed a collection of around 300 photos of French ships after the war that he sent back to the US, and I'd think it's likely that this is part of that collection. Parsecboy (talk) 17:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment: In the lead, "She spent the bulk of her career ..." comes in between sentences about WWI. Is "career" meant to apply to her entire service life or just the conflict? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:39, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Her entire service life - see if how I reworded it is clearer. Parsecboy (talk) 19:23, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

This article is in great shape. A few comments from me:

  • in the lead and early on in the body, specify that this was a dreadnought
    • Good idea
  • the deep load figures don't match between the infobox and body.
    • I'll let Sturm answer this one, since he has Jordan & Caresse
  • do we use the design speed in the infobox, or sea trial one?
    • Yes - I'd generally use the design speed if the trials speed was faster (since trials frequently did not represent real-world conditions, and in many cases...ahem, Italy, ahem...they were deliberately manipulated), but the reverse if they did not meet their design speed
  • perhaps state explicitly in the body that all the secondary guns were single mounts (it is in the infobox)
    • Done
  • same for the 47 mm guns
    • Done
  • locations for the TTs?
    • I'll let Sturm get this one too, as J&C will have the info if anyone does
  • comma after "commander of the squadron"
    • Added
  • suggest "official visit over the period 27 April – 1 May 1926" or similar, as the grammar seems choppy here.
    • Good idea
  • add a comma here "shell splashes, and"
    • Done
  • "On 1 October, Bretagne" which year? 1930 or 1931?
    • Another one for Sturm
  • suggest Halifax, Nova Scotia, as few will know where it is.
    • Done
  • "where they were assigned to a new Force X" should be at the end of the para rather than where it is
    • Done
  • suggest "The first two shells"
    • Done

That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:45, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Peacemaker. Parsecboy (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the last few that Parsec couldn't. See if they're satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:45, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work on this, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:57, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

The sources are all reliable and of high quality, and what you would expect for a French battleship of this vintage. I am left wondering if the two Dumas sources should have been consulted for this to be comprehensive. Do any of the Further reading books have anything to add? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:45, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I asked Jason about this at the Coubet ACR and his answer made sense to me as to why he hadn't used Dumas in that article either. Parsecboy (talk) 19:25, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I reckon in such cases it is better to avoid the question by double-citing any items where these sources agree with material already in the article. Otherwise it just begs the question why even list them as Further reading. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:59, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert[edit]

Support: looks pretty good to me. I only have a few minor suggestions/observations: AustralianRupert (talk) 21:50, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • no duplicate or dab links (no action required);
  • infobox figures match the body (no action required);
  • the article is well referenced, and seems comprehensive to me (no action);
  • in the lead, Fearful that the Germans would seize the French Navy, the British attacked the ships at Mers-el-Kébir: suggest adding the date of the action here
    • Good idea
  • 300 mm (11.8 in) of armour: avoid starting a sentence with a figure per MOS:NUMNOTES
    • Reworded
  • citation # 27 uses a bundled citation format, but no others do, even though citations # 14, 26 & 27 are placed side-by-side in the text; might be best to unbundle 27 for consistency here
    • Fixed
  • At the start of World War II in September: suggest reiterating the year here: "1939"
    • Done
  • Following the French surrender on 22 June: suggest reiterating the year here: "1940"
    • Done
  • The first attempt at salvage : do we know who attempted the salvage? Was it the British or French? Same in regards to the successful attempt?
    • I don't have Jordan & Caresse in front of me at the moment, but either Sturm or I can check it later today.
  • in the References Jordan & Moulin probably should be before Meirat alphabetically
    • Good catch
  • in the References the date in the title of the Rohwer work probably should have an endash
    • Fixed. Thanks AR. Parsecboy (talk) 13:28, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • No worries, your changes look good. Congratulations to you both on another quality article. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:30, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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_Bretagne&oldid=881957003"