Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/République-class battleship

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, 4 October 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

République-class battleship

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

République-class battleship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/République-class battleship/archive1

Another in our series of articles on French battleships, these two ships were originally to have been a class of six, but changes to the last four split them off into another class. They had fairly eventful peacetime careers, with Patrie accidentally torpedoing République in 1910 and the latter being struck by flying debris from the exploding battleship Liberté the next year. Their wartime service was a bit more subdued, spending time on the patrol line at the entrance to the Adriatic, followed by limited action off the Dardanelles, and then a stint in Greece. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 20:27, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

Claim my seat here. Do this one at the weekend. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:27, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I had to fix these before I put it up ;) Parsecboy (talk) 22:09, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

• You know you weren't spared if I have a review. ;)

• Patrie was transferred to the Gallipoli Campaign in May 1915 Decaptalise "Campaign".
  • Done
• a coup against the neutral but pro-German government Pipe German to the German Empire.
  • Done
• law was a reaction to the German 1898 Naval Law Merge German into the 1898 Naval Law's link.
  • Done
• Link Admiral.
  • Done
• battleship displacing 13,600 metric tons (13,400 long tons) No links for both tonnes?
  • Fixed
• Link armor-piercing shells.
  • Done
• Is there a law for the 1900 Fleet Law?
  • No, unfortunately
• displaced 14,605 metric tons (14,374 long tons; 16,099 short tons) at full load Link full load.
  • Done
• I see the usage of metric/long/short tons in the "General characteristics" section others don't?
  • Should be fixed now
• 19.15 knots (35.47 km/h; 22.04 mph) from 19,898 CV (19,626 ihp) What's a CV?
  • The French abbreviation for metric horsepower - removed the abbreviation since nobody was apparently bothered to come up with an abbreviation for metric horsepower that makes sense
• It extended from .5 m (1 ft 8 in) below the waterline Looks an americanised usage of ".5 m"?
  • Fixed
• plate were two layers of 20 mm (0.79 in)-thick steel Remove the hyphen.
  • Done
• front and side, with a 216 mm (8.5 in)-thick rear wall Same as above.
  • Done
• that was 200 mm-thick protected Same as above.
  • Done
• and secondary guns, and one .8 m (2 ft 7 in) Barr & Stroud Americanised ".8 m".
  • Fixed
• Link anti-aircraft guns.
  • Done
• battleships of the fleet withdrew to Corfu and Malta Are we speaking about the island of Malta or the island group? Because the island itself has a separate article.
  • Good catch
• Pipe Greek to the Kingdom of Greece.
  • Done
• Link the French Army.
  • Done
• "14,870 metric tons (14,640 long tons)" Link both tonnes in the infobox.
  • Done
• "18 knots (33 km/h; 21 mph)" Link knots.
  • Done

That's anything from me. Sorry for the late delay was a little bit busy with the drive. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:07, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

No problem, we aren't going anywhere ;) Parsecboy (talk) 11:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

G'day CPA-5, are you happy all your comments have been addressed? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:55, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

• Yes I am happy, it's ready to go in my view. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:44, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Source review

• Might be worth adding author links for Friedman, Ropp, Brassey and Halpern.
• References and footnotes are properly formatted
• All sources are highly RS.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:06, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments from AustralianRupert

Support: G'day, Nate, this looks pretty good to me. I have the following comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 22:28, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

• there are no dab links or dup links (no action required);
• ext link works (no action required);
• in the Fleet Law of 1900 --> "in the French Fleet Law of 1900"? Also, is there a link potentially for Fleet Law of 1900 (similar to the link provided for the German law?
  • No, unfortunately
• page numbers for Caresse's chapter in Jordan?
  • I'll need to @Sturmvogel 66: for that.
• OCLC or something similar for Brassey's?
  • Added
• slightly inconsistent: Gallipoli Campaign v Gallipoli campaign
  • Fixed
• Patrie suffered an outbreak of influenza...: Patrie's crew suffered...?
  • Good idea
• an image in the armour or modifications section would help break up the text a little more
  • Yeah, though I don't know that we have any more that we can use. Thanks for reviewing the article, AR. Parsecboy (talk) 12:29, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PM

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

• suggest "The République class consisted of a pair of pre-dreadnought battleships"
  • Done
• after "German Naval Law of 1898" use a full stop, then start a new sentence, as they don't need to be connected
  • Done
• "more flexible gun turrets" suggest adding "rather than in casemates"? And this aspect isn't really covered in the body
  • Good point - added a bit on this
• suggest "HMS Dreadnought had been commissioned into the Royal Navy and made all existing battleships obsolescent"
  • Done
• suggest "draft was limited atto 8.4 m"
  • Fixed
• you could turn lk=in for the speed in the infobox
  • Done
• the anti-torpedo boat guns seems to have been a mix of 65 mm and 47 mm guns, but the infobox just lists 47 mm ones? Don't we use "as built" rather than "as designed"?
  • Good catch
• suggest metropolitan France→Metropolitan France and link
  • Good idea

That's all I could find. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:45, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks PM. Parsecboy (talk) 12:41, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

No worries, supporting. Nice job on this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:57, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Also, the images are appropriately licensed, having all been published pre-1924. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:59, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

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.