Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/French battleship Iéna

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 TomStar81 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 19:20, 23 July 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

French battleship Iéna[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

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

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:45, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Iéna had a short history after her completion in 1902 as she suffered a magazine explosion while in dry dock in 1907. The ensuing investigations caused a scandal that resulted in the resignation of the navy minister and did not solve the fundamental problem because another magazine explosion occurred in 1911 aboard another battleship to much the same cause. The ship was patched enough to be refloated and used as a target in 1909 before sinking. Her wreck was sold for scrap three years later. I'm a little concerned about the organization of her career section as there are two timelines to cover after the explosion and I'm not sure how well it reads. I'd also like for reviewers to check for any remnants of AmEng and the usual unlinked or unexplained jargon and infelicitous prose in preparation for a FAC.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:45, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

This article is in good shape. First time I've seen it, so I have some comments:

  • the oa length doesn't match between the body and infobox, suggest adding oa after the length in the infobox
  • the beam doesn't match between the body and infobox
  • the draught conversion should be ftin in the body
  • suggest linking long tons
    • Already linked in the first para of the design section and in the infobox--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:17, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • in terms of the sea-keeping, I think you might need to attribute the opinions in-text, as there is a difference of opinion
  • consistency with 164 mm versus 164.7 mm
  • suggest "and fired 164.7 mm" as you don't usually add the calibre in here, just the weight
  • the 47 mm guns don't match between the body and infobox (16 vs. 20)
  • the TT configuration isn't clear, some were submerged and some above water?
  • not sure about italicising Arsenal de Brest, could we just go with Brest Arsenal
    • I don't really see the point. The two names are so close together that I think that non-French speakers won't have any problem with it.
  • "the flagship of Marquis" Marquis who? rank?
  • "was docked for repairs during 14–31 May"
  • suggest "After another refit during 20 August to 10 September"
  • "The following month sShe conducted"
  • suggest "was refitted onduring 15–25 April" as on is too precise
  • suggest "annual fleet manoeuvres over the period 3 July–1 August"
  • suggest "OnDuring 12–17 April 1906"
  • nearby worshops
  • suggest "as were 2 civilians in the suburb of Pont-Las who were killed by fragments"
  • (Ministre de l'Intérieur
  • I question the need for quite a few of the French translations, which break up the flow considerably in parts. Trim?
  • drop the comma from "unstable with age, and self-ignite"
  • "To test this theory, Gaston Thomson, the Navy Minister, ordered that a replica magazine and the adjacent black-powder magazine be built on 31 March to test this theory" test this theory repeated
    • What, I can't try to drive a point home to the reader?  ;-)
  • "The ship was stricken"
  • there is an unused harv tag in the Schwerer book in Further reading
    • I'm not seeing anything.

That's all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:31, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to have had a serious problem with prepositions with this one. See if everything is satisfactory now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:17, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:03, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Iena_Bougault.jpg is missing date
    • Added.
  • File:Inauguration_du_monument_aux_victimes_de_la_Iéna.jpeg: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:10, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]

Claim my seat here. I'll review this one tomorrow. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:10, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Director of Naval Construction (Directeur du matérial), Jules Thibaudier No link for both "Director of Naval Construction" and "Jules Thibaudier"?
    • I'm not sure that there's adequate coverage, even in French, to qualify as notable.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:41, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jordan and Caresse claim in their book that she was completed on 14 April 1902. But in Gardiner's book it claims it was on 4 April 1902?
    • I dunno why, but I went with the former because it's more recent.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:41, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Name and link for the 138.6 mm, 164.7 mm and 47 mm guns?
    • The 47 mm guns are linked and named in the armament section. I didn't link that 164s as the exact model to be fitted was still up in the air during the preliminary design phase.
  • Board of Construction, no link?
    • Again, not sure if it's notable enough for an article.
  • a pair each of 600-ampere and 1200-ampere capacity --> "a pair each of 600-ampere and 1,200-ampere capacity".
  • four 40-calibre Canon de 305 mm (12 in) Modèle 1893-1896 guns --> "four 40-calibre Canon de 305 mm (12 in) Modèle 1893–1896 guns".
  • I see a lot of "American kilograms".
    • Yeah, and I'm not sure why because the template defaults to BritEng, and I didn't specify AmEng.
  • Who made those templates? or someone who knows how to code here. Maybe he/she can help us.
  • I've asked on the template talk page, but don't hold your breath waiting for a fix.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:41, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • at a muzzle velocity of 815 m/s (2,670 ft/s) Link both m/s and ft/s here.
    • How is that really any different than meters and feet? It might be worthwhile not to abbreviate the units, though.
  • Maybe, because we both do not use that much?
  • Dunno, they're used a lot by scientists and weapons people, but I think that most ordinary readers can figure them out.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:41, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • She was launched on 1 September 1898 and completed Remove 1898 here.
  • Iena participated in the fleet review typo of Iéna here.
  • Still a typo you forgot to use the "é" here.
  • You didn't forget the é once. I just realised there were more than one. I just edit some of them, hope you like them now. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, that's fine. I'm just kinda shocked that I missed so many. :-( Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • as were 2 civilians killed by fragments in the the 2 should be a two by MOS:NUMERAL.
    • No, because I'm maintaining consistency in the format of the number of casualties
  • this is contradicted by the ship's captain's report of November Who's the Captain?
  • Rear-Admiral (Contre-amiral) René Marquis criticized the American criticized.

That's it, I think. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:12, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching these. See if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:41, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey Sturm I just replied to your responses here. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:19, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I'm done here. Here is my support both of sources and in general. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 23:18, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

  • The book of Friedman has a little typo in its title. It should be "Naval Weapons of World War One" not "Naval Weapons of World War I" well that's what my PC says to me.
    • Good catch. I've probably screwed that title up on most every time I've used it. Damn it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:48, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some sources have other publishers than Google Books says. Like Conway's has Mayflower Books, Warship has Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, Norman's book has Seaforth Publishing and Silverstone's books has Buccaneer Books. My Conway's says Conway Maritime Press too but to be sure are those the real publishers or is Google Books trolling us?
    • No, most of it's US edition vs British edition, but some of it's caused by me getting the editions mixed up and using the wrong ISBN since the editions I have in hand aren't the same ones I had a decade ago.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:48, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there some links for all the "Further reading" section's sources?
    • Don't think so, but I'm not sure exactly what you mean. I tried to find the newspapers on Gallica, but their titles are too generic, I guess, and struck out.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:48, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well Sturm the problem here is we've no links or any kind of code like ISBN, OCLC or ISSN here. Also, why are they here I mean they aren't mentioned in the "Notes" section and what kind of information do they us give? I mean all the information is mentioned in the other sources? And it's odd to call them further reading even no one ever started to get any information about those sources. The newspapers even are from 2007 so it's not clear or they are reliable or not. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I couldn't find an OCLC # for Schwerer report. I left the newspapers alone after I couldn't find them on Gallica. That said, they could be useful sources with access to French libraries, so I left them be.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:05, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • All citations are properly formatted and the references are from highly-reliable sources. Here, this is your present from my holiday after 10 days waiting. :p Cheers CPA-5 (talk) 16:03, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert[edit]

Support: G'day, this looks pretty good to me. I have a few minor comments: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • they caused a scandal that caused the...: repeated word "caused" -- is there a way of rewording?
  • is the decommissioned date mentioned in the body? (I couldn't see it but maybe I missed it)
    • Nope, your eyes didn't deceive you.
  • thickness from 298 to 258 mm -- might be better to put the smaller figure first
  • thickness from 150–55 millimetres: this looks a bit strange as the larger figure is presented first
  • to a 100 mm magazine --> "100-mm"?
    • MOS says abbreviated measurements don't use the hyphen
  • was contracted to removed --> "remove"
  • suggest adding a translation for the title of the Gille source
    • Good idea
  • same as above for the Schwerer source
  • ext links: "nice picture gallery" --> probably should delete "nice" here as it doesn't seem very neutral, also it should probably start with a capital and identify the site
    • Another good idea. See if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:29, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Changes look good. Added my support above. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:08, 18 July 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_Iéna&oldid=907565382"