Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Liberté-class battleship/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 29 July 2021 [1].

Liberté-class battleship

edit
Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 15:25, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article covers a group of four French battleships built in the early 1900s, as part of a large naval program aimed at countering German naval expansion. They were nearly repeats of the preceding République-class battleships, but with an increased secondary armament to keep pace with developments abroad. One of them, Liberté, was destroyed in an accidental explosion in 1911, but the remainder saw action during World War I and were discarded in the years after. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 15:25, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

edit

All the images used are in public domain and are properly captioned. There are no issues with the images. Moisejp (talk) 07:11, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

edit

This has been open for nearly three weeks and has attracted little interest. Unless it attracts considerable further attention over the next four or five days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:52, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll post some notices and see if I can't scare up any reviews. Parsecboy (talk) 23:26, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF

edit

I'll review this. Hog Farm Talk 23:43, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "as he correctly determined that their shallow belt armor would render them vulnerable to flooding from hits above the belt that could dangerously destabilize the vessels" - is there a way to move the clauses around? I'm presuming that it's the flooding that could destabilize the vessels, but the current phrasing suggests the above-waterline hits themselves did the destablizing
    • Reworded
  • "At an economical cruising speed of 10 kn (19 km/h; 12 mph), the ships could steam for 8,400 nautical miles (15,600 km; 9,700 mi)" - is this range for normal or full load of coal?
    • That I don't know, Jordan & Caresse don't specify, unfortunately.
  • Infobox gives dates built as being from 1903 to 1908. Shouldn't the start date be 1902 because that's when Liberte was laid down?
    • Good catch
  • "Early on 25 September, while it Toulon, Liberté was destroyed by an accidental magazine explosion that killed nearly three hundred of her crew" - I think you're missing a word in here
    • "It" probably should have been "in" or "at" - Zawed fixed it already.
  • Sources all appear to be reliable

Anticipate supporting, this looks like it is in very good shape. Hog Farm Talk 00:33, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, Hog Farm. Parsecboy (talk) 10:21, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support on WP:FACR 1a, 1b, source reliability, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, 2c, and 4; did not check against others. Hog Farm Talk 22:37, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zawed

edit

This looks to be in fairly good order. I have only a few nitpicks for consideration:

  • Perhaps make it explicit that the first two ships of the six were of the République class? It's implied but may not get picked up by the casual reader.
    • Good idea
  • In the final sentence of the design section, the phrase "entered service" is used twice in relatively close succession, suggest rephrasing one of them
    • Fixed
  • In the 2nd paragraph of the general characteristics section, is the "foremast" the same as the "forward mast"?
    • Yes, switched the second to "foremast"
  • In the infobox, the Built field states 1903–1908, but the construction details in the Ships section, says Liberté was laid down in 1902.

As noted above, this looks to be in good shape. Zawed (talk) 03:06, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. Parsecboy (talk) 10:30, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to Support. Zawed (talk) 19:51, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dumelow

edit

Checked on the prose only. Looking good, only a few minor comments some of which might just be my personal preference, so feel free to disagree or ignore! - Dumelow (talk) 07:45, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Design

  • Is Fleet Law of 1900 worth redlinking as a realistic target for a new article? We have articles on the German laws
    • And the Naval Defence Act 1889, for instance. But I don't know about the French law; the British one is pretty widely recognized for its impact (setting the famed two power standard and ordering the first of the pre-dreadnought type battleships) and the German naval laws obviously played a major role in the Anglo-German naval arms race (which was a contributing cause of WWI). In the French case, however, I don't know that I've seen it discussed in a wider context, and it didn't really factor into German planning (Tirpitz was of course focused on the Royal Navy). All that is to say, I don't know that an article will ever be written on it, but I suppose a redlink doesn't hurt anything, so I could go either way. What do you think?
I tend to err on the side of adding redlinks in case it inspires somebody to have a go, but happy either way (and it's not really an FAC matter)
  • Seems a bit strange to say the class was required as part of the expansion of 1900 and then to talk about design beginning in 1897. Perhaps mention that the new class was based on a design Bertin had been working on before?
    • I dunno about this - in between the authorization and design work beginning is the bit about Bertin becoming the DCCN in 1896 and his advocacy before then. I suppose it makes sense to me that ships are generally designed and then the navy asks for money to build them. But I think even without that knowledge, it should be easy to follow the section, since Bertin is the one driving the process.
Fair enough. Probably just my ignorance of naval construction, I had assumed "authorised" meant "authorised to start any work on the class" rather than "authorised to put a design already completed into construction"

Machinery

  • "Coal storage amounted to 900 t (890 long tons) normally and up to 1,800 t (1,800 long tons) at full load. At an economical cruising speed of 10 kn (19 km/h; 12 mph), the ships could steam for 8,400 nautical miles (15,600 km; 9,700 mi)" is that at the normal or full load of coal?
    • That I don't know, unfortunately - Jordan & Caresse don't specify
No problem

Armor

  • "The ship's main belt armor consisted of two strakes of cemented steel that was 280 mm (11 in) amidships" Presumably the 280mm is a combined thickness of the two strakes?
    • No, they weren't layered, one was above the other (because French armor manufacturers couldn't roll plate wide enough to cover the full height)
Oh, I see. You helpfully link strake, but I ignored it! No issue here
  • "Forward, it extended all the way forward to the stem" maybe just "forward, it extended all the way to the stem"?
    • Good idea
  • "The trunks down to the magazines were covered by 84 mm (3.3 in) above the main deck and 14 mm (0.55 in) below, where it was behind the belt." Do we know what this armor was made of?
    • Clarified

Service History

  • "Most notably among these visits was a voyage by the 2nd Division ships across the Atlantic to represent France at the Hudson–Fulton Celebration in the United States in 1909" is "most notable.." better?
    • Yes, I think so
  • "She participated in bombardment of Ottoman coastal fortifications there in November" perhaps "in the bombardment"?
    • Good catch
  • "The 2nd Squadron ships were then sent to Greece to put pressure on the neutral but pro-German government; they sent men ashore in December to support a coup launched by pro-Allied elements in the government, but were compelled to retreat by the Greek Army." This is December 1916 according to the lead but follows a sentence talking about 1915 so the reader assumes that year
    • Fixed

Lead

  • "The French ultimately intervened in a coup that overthrew the Greek king and brought the country into the war" The main body text only mentions the coup of December 1916, that the ships of the class participated in, which was unsuccessful. Though does state the Greek king was forced to abdicate in June 1917 the implication is that this was only under French pressure rather than direct action
    • Added a bit more detail in the body
Yes, this clears that up well. Thanks
  • "Following the Allied victory, Justice and Démocratie were sent to the Black Sea to monitor German forces as they demilitarized Russian warships they had seized during the war," the main text just says "to oversee the demilitarization of Russian warships that had been seized by German forces during the war", not that the demilitarisation was carried out by German forces
    • Done
  • "The other two ships remained in commission until 1920, when they too were deactivated" main text states that Justice was reduced to reserve in 1920 and decommissioned in 1921. It only mentions that Démocratie was struck from the register in 1921
    • Clarified (I think)
  • " All three were sold for scrap in 1921 and broken up in Italy." main text only states that Vérité and Démocratie were broken up in Italy and does not explicitly give a year for their sale.
Works for me
Support on prose - Dumelow (talk) 14:27, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

edit

All the sources are reliable, and exactly what you would expect on a class of French pre-dreadnoughts. I haven't done spotchecks, but AGF given Parsecboy's long history at FAC. The only minor thing I could see was fn 17 should be pp. not p. A couple of details that might be worth adding are that the Danton class were a development of the Liberté class. Ref is French Battleships 1922-1956 by John Jordan and Robert Dumas, p. 9 [2] and that the Liberté class continued the general trend towards a heavier secondary battery. Ref is Navies of Europe by Lawrence Sondhaus, p. 123 [3]. Couldn't find anything else pertinent for a class article. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:20, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks PM - the details about the heavier secondary battery is already mentioned (see the last para in the design section), but I added a line about the Dantons. Parsecboy (talk) 14:25, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note II

edit

This could do with a prose review by a non-MilHist editor. I have put it on Urgents in the hope of attracting one. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:24, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Content review by Moisejp

edit

OK, I can do the requested non-MilHist prose review.

Design:

  • "the first two of which were the République". Should this be "the first two of which were the République and the Patrie"?
  • Yeah, something is missing there - either that or add "class" to the line (and I opted for the latter, to avoid the issue that it might not be immediately clear that Patrie was a member of the Republique class.)
  • "as he correctly determined that their shallow belt armor would render them vulnerable to hits above the belt that could cause flooding that would dangerously destabilize the vessels". Just double-checking that "correctly" adds value to the sentence. Does the sentence imply that before he was able to implement his plans, some vessels did become flooded due this flaw—and if so should this detail be added to the text? (Or if no vessels ended up suffering this fate, are we sure that he was correct?) Moisejp (talk) 01:19, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, he was most certainly correct - the French battleship Gaulois was badly damaged by Ottoman shellfire in 1915 (and very nearly sank), and the French battleship Bouvet rapidly capsized and sank after hitting an Ottoman mine the same day, also a result of the stability problems Bertin identified. I don't know that it really needs to be mentioned here, as it seems to me to be a bit of a tangent.
  • If the reader wonders "How do we know he was correct? Was there an instance of this problem?" then that's distracting. Details in the text shouldn't result in more questions than they answer. My suggestion is if you just remove the word, the reader is left wondering a lot less. Moisejp (talk) 14:42, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose one solution would be to add an explanatory note - the question is answered without bogging down the narrative.
  • "13,600 metric tons" vs. "15,000 t". Also various mentions of "metric tonnes" vs. just "t" in infobox, General characteristics, and Machinery sections. Moisejp (talk) 01:27, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "t" is the abbreviation for metric tons, there isn't a US-specific one
  • Parsecboy, sorry if I wasn't clear. I understand they're the same, but if it were me I would have been consistent about choosing one or the other to use. I guess it's not a deal-breaker though, if you disagree. Moisejp (talk) 14:42, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's generally standard practice to use the full term first and then abbreviate afterward - this is the advice given at MOS:UNITNAMES.

World War I:

  • "The ships of the 2nd Squadron steamed to Algiers, escorted a convoy of troop ships carrying some 7,000 men until they were relieved midway to France by the dreadnoughts Jean Bart and Courbet." Should this be "and escorted" or possibly "escorted by" or "escorting"? Moisejp (talk) 06:37, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is something wrong there - changed to "Algiers, and then escorted..."

My only other comment is—and I'm not sure if this is usual for warship articles—the Design section seems to take up two thirds of the main text, but most of the section does not seem to be represented (summarized) in the lead. Maybe there are too many small details about the design, and it's therefore hard to summarize? Perhaps just a couple of sentences along the lines of "Features of the ship class included..." with a small number of examples could be one way to do it? Well, that's just an idea. If you have good reasons for not adding any more of this section to the lead, no worries, I'm happy to trust your judgment. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 06:53, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's more or less it - there's not a good way to summarize the technical material. There already are a couple of lines about the ships' armament (and what set them apart from the Republiques) - I suppose I can add a bit about their top speed.

I support but I have left two comments that I gently urge you to consider. Thanks. Moisejp (talk) 14:42, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. Parsecboy (talk) 19:43, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Parsecboy, just checking you've seen the source review and other comments? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:20, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was on vacation last week and didn't have the time to get to any of it. Thanks PM. Parsecboy (talk) 14:03, 26 July 2021 (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/Liberté-class_battleship/archive1&oldid=1036178403"