Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/French battleship Mirabeau

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 Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 09:20, 8 April 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

French battleship Mirabeau[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

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

Toolbox

Mirabeau was one of the six Danton-class semi-dreadnought battleships built before World War I. She had a fairly uneventful war spending it entirely in the Mediterranean on blockade duty. The ship briefly participated in the occupation of Constantinople after the war before being transferred to the Black Sea to support the White forces during the Russian Civil War at the end of 1918. She ran aground in early 1919 and had to be partially dismantled before she could be refloated. Mirabeau could only be partially reassembled before the Allies were forced to evacuate Sevastopol. Already obsolete, she wasn't worth the money to repair and was scrapped in 1922. As usual, I'm looking for any remnants of BritEng, unexplained jargon and infelicitous prose in anticipation of a FAC in the near future.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:07, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]

  • Mirabeau was one of the six Danton-class semi-dreadnought battleships Sea of blue here?
    • Consolidated links
  • The turbines were rated at 22,500 shaft horsepower (16,800 kW) Link kW.
  • Together with four of her sisters, she participated in a large naval review by the President of France, Armand Fallières, off Cap Brun on 4 September Do we know what kind of review this was? This is just a little vague to me.
    • Not in any detail. Every so often French politicians just seem to feel like a staging a naval review.
  • The ship participated in combined fleet maneuvers between Provence and Tunisia in May–June Replace the link of Tunesia with the French protectorate one.
  • Before war was declared on the morning of 4 August Declared by whom?
  • the French capital ships spent most of their time cruising between the Greek and Italian coasts At the time both Greece and Italy were neutral so maybe add "neutral" in the sentence?
    • Good idea.
  • Link for Adriatic.
  • Jean Bart's link is an SIA maybe replace it with the 1911 one.
  • French Navy to withdraw to either Malta or Bizerte, French Tunisia We don't know which one of the two exactly they went? Also Malta's link should be the British Crown Colony's one and unlink Tunisia.
    • They likely visited both at one time or another.
  • to cover the Otranto Barrage Link Otranto Barrage.
  • In the Noemvriana, on 1 December 1916 --> "In the Noemvriana, on 1 December 1916" Because its article tells us that.
    • Reworked
  • Ottoman Empire vs Turkish.
  • Afterwards, she spent 1917 based at Corfu or at Mudros to prevent the Goeben Is it safe to remove the article here?
  • In August the ship tested a tethered balloon, but it was destroyed by a lightning strike on 31 October Where exactly?
    • Unknown
  • So since 1917 she barely saw combat and stayed on the island of Mudros?
    • As best I can tell
  • Link Constantinople.
  • Hmm this is really odd. In an image "Mirabeau bombarding Athens the 1 December [O.S. 18 November] 1916" Old Style is used but in de body '1 December 1916" even though this event is about Greece?
  • The fate's date in the infobox "28 August 1922" isn't mentioned in the body?
  • The 4 shafts nor the 4 steam turbines from the body are not mentioned in the body? Plus link them in both in the infobox and body.
  • The "305 mm (12 in) guns" in the infobox don't match with the body one (infobox says 2; body 4 guns)?
    • 2 twin guns in the infobox
  • Same as above for the "47 mm (1.9 in) guns" (10 in the body and 8 in the infobox)?
    • That is a mistake.
  • And as last both the "Turrets: 260–340 mm (10.2–13.4 in)" and the "Conning tower" are not included or don't match with the body?

That's anything from me. I'm surprised I could find so many things in the infobox which don't match with the body or are not included at all. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Guess I was having an off day. Thanks for catching all these problems.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:01, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks great. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

Parsecboy (talk) 15:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by AustralianRupert[edit]

Support: G'day, Sturm, not a lot stood out to me. I have only a few minor comments/observations: AustralianRupert (talk) 07:55, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • there are no dup links (no action required); naval review is a dab link, although I couldn't find a more appropriate replacement (no action required)
  • ext links work (no action required)
  • suggest adding alt text: [1]
  • the infobox says the belt ranged from 180-250 mm, but the body says 180-270
  • the infobox says the ship was scrapped 28 August 1922, but the body seems to say 28 April 1922
  • the article reads well except one minor point:
    • but Mirabeau was refloated three days as news --> "but Mirabeau was refloated three days later as news"?
  • citation style seems consistent to me (no action required)
  • citation density seems good (no action required)
  • references appear reliable to me based on authors and publishers, although I wasn't able to confirm Jean Meirat or the F. P. D. S. Newsletter -- do we know anything about them?
    • Good catches all! Meirat was a French naval historian most active in the '60s and '70s. I've reworked the cite to show that it was originally published in a French nautical journal and only translated by the FPDS.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:59, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Zawed[edit]

Little to pick at here:

  • inconsistency between body/infobox in belt armour thickness, same with scrapping dates
  • just noticed AR spotted this as well. Zawed (talk) 09:28, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • proved to be too wet to work in anything other than calm weather: the use of wet seems a strange way of describing this problem. Can we just say "proved to be too exposed to work (or alternatively function)" or is that too close to the source? Zawed (talk) 09:25, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • See how it reads now, although wet is actually the traditional terminology. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:07, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Happy with that, adding my support. Zawed (talk) 08:51, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Sturm, I believe you're not aware of these comments by Zawed and AR? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 22:53, 3 April 2020 (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_Mirabeau&oldid=949749588"