Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/French battleship Jauréguiberry

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history | Assessment

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 Kges1901 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:20, 27 April 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

French battleship Jauréguiberry

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

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

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

Toolbox

Jauréguiberry was one of five roughly similar battleships built in the early 1890s in response to a British naval expansion program. Constrained by fiscal and size limitations imposed by the French National Assembly, they were inferior to their British counterparts and had much longer building times. The ship was particularly accident prone over the course of her career with incidents of running agrounding, boiler and torpedo explosions. She played a minor role in World War I, although she did participate in the Gallipoli Campaign before becoming a guard ship in Egypt for the rest of the war. She was then used as an accommodation hulk before being scrapped in 1934. Parsecboy and I have reworked the article recently and believe that it meets the A-class criteria. We would like reviewers to look closely for any lingering remnants of BritEng and unexplained or unlinked jargon in preparation for an eventual FAC.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:07, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

edit
  • The first stage of the program American program.
  • 14 cm (5.5 in) or 16 cm (6.3 in) caliber American caliber.
  • but instead of mounting the main battery all on the centerline American centerline.
  • The 305 mm guns fired 292-kilogram (644 lb) American kilogram.
  • projectiles, or heavier 340-kilogram (750 lb) armour-piercing same as above American kilogram.
  • These fired a 4-kilogram (8.8 lb) shell at a muzzle velocity again American kilogram.
  • They fired a 1.49-kilogram (3.3 lb) projectile at let me guess again American kilogram?
  • to Quiberon Bay for joint maneuvers in July. American maneuvers.
  • instructions from the ship's fire control center to the guns American center.
  • that were in standard use in the world's navies at the time.[18][8] suggest ordering the refs numerically here.

That's it for now. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Never had reason to check what the original version the article was written in, but it turns out to have been AmEng, so I've switched everything over to that. I think that I've caught all the BritEng spellings, but I'd appreciate it if you could reverse the polarity of your eagle eye and see if that's actually the case. Otherwise everything is dealt with.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:03, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sturmvogel 66: Well that would change the game let me see for a new update. But I have to tell you that you forgot some spots.

Update

  • to a naval expansion programme of the British Royal Navy British programme.
  • See a lot of tonnes
  • displacement would not exceed 14,000 tonnes (13,779 long tons)
  • could be up to 14,000 tonnes
  • displacement to around 12,000 tonnes (11,810 long tons)
  • She normally carried 750 tonnes (738 long tons) of coal
  • Jauréguiberry had a total of 3,960 tonnes (3,897 long tons)
  • All sources agree on four 50-calibre (65-millimeter (2.6 in)) guns British calibre.
  • ran aground for a short time in the outer harbour British harbour.
  • France announced general mobilisation on 1 August British mobilisation.
  • 47 mm (1.9 in) 40-calibre Canon de 47 mm Modèle 1885 Hotchkiss guns British calibre.
  • two 45-calibre 274-millimeter (10.8 in) Modèle 1887 guns British calibre.
  • and a host of other vessels, including coastal defence battleships, cruisers British defence.

Here you go. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:40, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for responding to this so quickly. My eyes were glazing over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

edit

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

  • the batteries listed in the lead don't match the infobox and body. eg where was the 100 mm battery?
  • in the lead, suggest "from 1916 foruntil the restend of the war"
  • suggest "and which had also been designed by Lagane"
  • the conversion of the full load displacement in the infobox varies from that in the body
  • the specifics of the speed in the body aren't adhered to in the infobox
  • link tumblehome
  • suggest "but d'Ausson states that she had six tubes, two each above water in the bow and stern and one on each broadside underwater"
  • link ship launching
  • link sea trial
  • link ship commissioning
  • should Northern Squadron be redlinked?
    • I have no real sources with which to turn it into even a stub.
  • consistency between Third Division and 3rd Division
  • link Toulon at first mention
  • "Jauréguiberry was stationed at Bizerte"
  • "By late May, the French squadron had been restored to effective strength" but then it is redesignated as a division?
    • That's a paraphrase from the source. French naval organizational structure is not a emphasis in the literature on the Dardanelles campaign.
  • For Ile Rouad, link Arwad
  • link Navy List
  • is there an ISSN for de la Loge d'Ausson?
    • No

That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:59, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your usual thorough review. See if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:35, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: - can you see if Sturm has addressed your concerns? Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 11:36, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting. Nice work! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:03, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are all reliable and of high quality, what you would expect for a French ship of this vintage. No formatting issues. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:10, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Brassey's should be italicized in caption
  • Suggest scaling up both drawings
  • File:French_battleship_Jaureguiberry_NH_88826_.jpg: when/where was this first published?

Comments by Wehwalt

edit

Just a few things:

  • "on trials" I might say "on her sea trials" or similar, or at least pipe to that, since this is a first usage.
  • "Beginning on 29 September 1910 her boiler tubes were renewed at Cherbourg. During this period, on 4 September 1911, she participated in a naval review off Toulon." The work was still going on? If so, I might say instead of "During this period" to "With work still unfinished," or some such. "During this period" seems a bit unclear.
  • "During this period, she was fitted with an experimental fire-control system as part of a series of tests of the equipment before it was installed in the new Courbet-class dreadnought battleships.[" Another "during this period" which seems a bit vague, and I might cut "of the equipment" which is implied.
  • "On 1 April, Guépratte transferred his flag from Charlemagne, which was in need of maintenance, to Jauréguiberry." I'm not sure that the maintenance needs of Charlemagne really need to be in this article.
  • "Asiatic" Asian? The earlier term was sometimes used in a derogatory sense so I try to avoid it.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:19, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, see if my changes work for you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:36, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They're fine. Support.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:04, 21 April 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_Jauréguiberry&oldid=894304267"