Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/French battleship Courbet (1911)

< 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 Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 08:20, 19 November 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

French battleship Courbet (1911) edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

French battleship Courbet (1911) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Courbet had a typical career for a French dreadnought of her generation. Her participation in World War I mostly consisted of swinging around a mooring buoy as she was tasked to prevent a breakout into the Mediterranean by the Austro-Hungarian fleet, aside from helping to sink a small Austro-Hungarian cruiser. Between the wars, she was extensively modernized, but not enough that the French didn't use her as a training ship during the 1930s. After bombarding Rommel's 7th Panzer as it approached Cherbourg, France, she sailed to Britain where she was seized by Perfidious Albion a few weeks later. They used her as a target ship before she was sunk as a breakwater off the Normandy beaches in 1944. I've extensively reworked the article recently and I believe that it meets the A-class standards. I'd like reviewers to look for any stray AmEng and unexplained jargon in preparation for an eventual FAC.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:07, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Brassey's should be italicized
  • File:Courbet_class_diagrams_Brasseys_1912.jpg needs a US PD tag, and if the author is unknown how do we know they died over 70 years ago?
  • File:Courbet_1914_Agence_Rol_btv1b6929962d.JPEG: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:20, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unknown. As a press agency photograph, I think it pretty likely that it was published sometime before 1923 as it's dated 1914.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:13, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I dug a little deeper and it is out of copyright in France.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:32, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suppport Comments

  • Why is the prefix given for Ulan and not Zenta? If anything, the first ship mentioned should get the prefix.
  • "The declaration of war on Austria-Hungary by Italy on 23 May and their decision to defend the Adriatic" - this is not clear to me. Whose decision to defend the Adriatic? It would probably be simpler to just say that "Italy declared war on 23 May and the Italian fleet took over responsibility for naval operations in the Adriatic" or something along those lines.
  • Where was the 2nd Maritime Region?
  • I wonder if the Dumas book ought to be consulted before we consider the article to be comprehensive. On one hand, the book isn't readily available in the US and it's a bit pricey (I'm seeing about 60 Euros online), but it's probably got a lot more detail than we currently have. I wonder if any French editors could help us out here? It looks like @Paul-Pierre Valli: is still around on occasion, and @Rama: looks to still be active. Could either of you lend a hand? Parsecboy (talk) 13:15, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I do not readily have access to the book in question. Best of luck! Rama (talk) 17:10, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I copied the Dumas book years ago and looked at it for this, but I thought that Jordan & Caresse was better because Dumas made errors like giving the Courbets geared steam turbines, etc., IIRC. And since there appears to be a lot of information released from the archives since 1980, I figured that the later book was generally a more reliable one. That said, I can send the relevant pages to anyone who's interested.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:39, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough on Dumas. Nice work as usual. Parsecboy (talk) 11:44, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from CPA-5 edit

Greetings Sturm, happy to see you working on this ship.

  • See some American English and British English
  • calibre
  • meter(s)/metre(s)
  • license
  • millimetre
  • armour
  • armored/armoured
  • reorganized
  • modernisation(s)
  • defence
  • mobilised
  • advancing
  • manoeuvres
  • motorised
  • harbour (in the File:The_French_Navy_in_the_Mediterranean,_1914-1918_Q69439.jpg file)
  • "A Barr & Stroud 4.57-metre (15 ft 0 in) rangefinder" is the "0 in" important if not then it can become "(15 ft)"?
  • "The DCT was fitted with a 4.57-metre (15 ft 0 in) coincidence rangefinder" delete the (15 ft 0 in) there is already one above the sentence.
  • "manoeuvres in the Bay of Biscay with the Atlantic-based ships that began on the 26th." --> "manoeuvres in the Bay of Biscay with the Atlantic-based ships that began on 26 June."
    • Trying to mix things up.
  • "24,748 tonnes (24,357 long tons)" no short tons?
    • Nah, I don't believe in them.

Hopefully is this usefull. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Man, I did a crummy job of weeding out the AmEng from this one. Thanks for catching all of these. See if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • First spot "on the top of the tripod mast and all of her original rangefinders were replaced with the exception of the 2-meter (6 ft 7 in) rangefinders in each turret." the metre is still in American English.
  • Second spot I just realised there are two "Vice Admirals" first one in "Courbet became the flagship of Vice Admiral (Vice-amiral) Augustin Boué de Lapeyrère," and second one in "Courbet was briefly placed in reserve before she became Vice-Admiral Charlier's flagship between 6 June 1919 and 20 October 1920." which one should the page use?
  • The Brits like a hyphen with their admiral ranks, so lets go with that. Good catches!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:13, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great, I have no comments anymore I changed it to support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:19, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Kges1901 edit

Source review

All sources appear to be RS. Explanation 'accepted' as to why Dumas is not necessary. Kges1901 (talk) 10:59, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

  • You mention Operation Neptune in the fate, but don't refer to the Normandy landings as that in the lead and in the body you call them the Battle of Normandy.

Description

  • Last paragraph has five consecutive sentences beginning with 'the'
    • Mixed up a little

Construction and service

  • the ship laid down Appears to be a missing word here
  • Is the cost in contemporary francs?
    • Yes, not adjusted for inflation.
  • Courbet was commissioned into the fleet on 19 November 1913. Shortly after finishing her machinery trials, she ferried the President of France, Raymond Poincaré, to Britain for a short visit on 24–26 June. If the visit occurred before she was commissioned the sentences should be reordered to keep chronological order?.
  • If Courbet was not part of the 1st Division by August 1914, what unit was she assigned to?
    • Clarified
  • That still appears unclear, unless I am not seeing something.
  • Because the whereabouts of the Perhaps say 'since' because 'because' was stated in the previous sentence
    • Good idea.
  • On 11 January 1915, the French were alerted Seems too vague, presumably their naval command or similar?
    • Probably, but not specified.
  • that the Austro-Hungarian fleet was going to sortie from their base at Pola Perhaps use 'its' base as it could be read to imply that the French had a base at Pola. This sentence could also be rephrased to focus more on Courbet instead of the French battle fleet since this is a ship article.
    • Fixed.
  • The declaration of war on Austria-Hungary by Italy on 23 May and the Italian decision to assume responsibility for naval operations in the Adriatic, allowed the French Navy to withdraw to either Malta or Bizerte, French Tunisia, to cover the Otranto Barrage. What was Courbet's role in this?
    • Unknown.
  • Courbet's 47 mm gun use plural guns
    • Good catch.
  • On 27 April 1916, the French began using the port of Argostoli on the Greek island of Cephalonia as a base. Around this time many men from the battleships' crews were transferred to anti-submarine ships. At the beginning of 1917, the French began to use the Greek island of Corfu as well, but growing shortages of coal severely limited the battleships' ability to go to sea. In 1918 they were almost immobile, leaving Corfu only for maintenance and repairs. These sentences should be reworded to focus on Courbet and not the French fleet in general
    • I wish my sources supported that idea.

Interwar period

  • Vice-Admiral Charlier Is his full name known?
    • I wish.
  • Suggest splitting the first paragraph in half as it seems longer than the others
  • The following year she became a gunnery training ship at Toulon, but she suffered a serious boiler fire on 6 June 1923 that required repairs, so she was given the first of her modernisations between 9 July 1923 and 16 April 1924, at La Seyne-sur-Mer. Suggest splitting the sentence as it combines three different events
  • was positioned on its roof Is this the roof of the fire control position on the foremast? It does not seem clear from the text.
    • See how it reads now.
  • In 1933 and 1934, Courbet and her sister Paris, both assigned to the Training Division, rarely left port. Was this also true in 1935 and 1936?
    • Probably, but not specified.

World War II

  • link evacuation (of Cherbourg) to Operation Aerial
  • Briefly explain why Operation Catapault happened to provide context, i.e. mention that France left the war
    • See if my wording is OK
  • Explain that Highball and Upkeep were bouncing bombs
  • Four consecutive sentences beginning with 'she' in the last paragraph
  • Note that the Neger manned torpedoes were German
    • Who else would they be manned by?
  • That isn't clear unless one clicks on the link though.
  • I think that you're overthinking things. It's 1944, Italy's out of the war, who else's could they be?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:58, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kges1901 (talk) 14:16, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many thanks for your thorough review. Let me know if further changes are necessary.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:00, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert edit

Support: G'day, Sturm, nice work as always. I have a few minor points: AustralianRupert (talk) 05:26, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • no dab links, no dup links, all ext links work
  • referencing looks fine to me
  • I suggest adding alt text for the images: [1]
  • in the lead there is a little repetition of "August 1914" -- I wonder if there is a way to reduce that?
    • Indeed there is
  • in the lead, was later used as a target ship in mid-1943 -- "later" is probably not required given the date that is provided
  • the Description section seems a bit abrupt, like it is missing a sentence between the first sentence and the sentence that starts "The ships were..."
    • I see what you mean, see how the new sentence reads.
  • the infobox mentions that the ship was ordered on 11 August 1910, but I couldn't find this date in the body of the article
    • Good catch
  • the installed power figures that are in the infobox do not appear to be in the body of the article
    • Ooops.
  • hit by Neger manned torpedoes during the nights of 15–16 and 16–17 August: was this a deliberate attack by the Germans, or were they aiming for something else? Was there any damage?
    • They were lucky to hit anything at all from the accounts that I've read. No details on the damage, though it was probably pretty irrelevant given that she'd already been scuttled.
  • Jordan & Caresse, pp. 320: single "p" instead of double here
  • in the Bibliography, the title of the Rohwer work probably needs an endash for the date
  • in the Further reading section, I suggest adding a translation for the title by Dumas & Guiglini
    • Thanks for the thorough review. See if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:20, 18 November 2018 (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_Courbet_(1911)&oldid=869546792"