Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/French aircraft carrier Béarn

< 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 Gog the Mild (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 15:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

French aircraft carrier Béarn edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

French aircraft carrier Béarn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Béarn was an incomplete Lorraine-class dreadnought that France converted into an aircraft carrier after WW I. Her pre-war career was uneventful and her aircraft were disembarked at the beginning of WW II to operate from land bases. The carrier was used for training new pilots and ferried over a hundred tons of gold to Canada in early 1940. The armistice with Germany caused the carrier to be diverted to the French West Indies and Béarn was effectively interned there for the next 3 years. After the islands joined Free France in 1943, she was converted into an aircraft ferry. After the war she helped to ferry troops, aircraft and supplies to French Indochina for several years as the French attempted to regain control of their former colony. The ship then became the flagship of a combined submarine and anti-submarine unit before she was scrapped in 1967. In preparation for an eventual FAC, I'd like for reviewers to look for unlinked or explained jargon and identify infelicitous prose.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:19, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass edit

  • The infobox gives a decommission date of 21 March 1967, I'm not seeing this in there. I am seeing a stricken date of 31 March 1967 in the prose, is one of the two dates an error?
  • Does Le Masson have an ISBN or OCLC?
  • Tucker's just an editor, probably best to point that out.
    • Good catch
  • Is Moulin, Morareau, & Picard possibly published in 1996 per [https://www.amazon.com/B%C3%A9arn-Commandant-Morareau-Picard-Moulin/dp/290967522X?
    • Maybe, the book actually doesn't provide the year of publication and I prefer to leave it at that
  • Worldcat says the ISBN for Tucker is a second edition, note that.
  • Are you sure Genda was an author for that volume of Aircraft Carriers? Both Worldcat and Amazon list only Polmar for volume 2
    • Genda's listed on the title pages of both volumes

I think that's about it. Source checks not done, as I don't have any of the books, but it's an experienced nominator, so no issues with that. Hog Farm Bacon 01:49, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching these.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:04, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D edit

This article is in good shape, and I have only minor comments:

  • "the French intended to use her" - not sure why the nationality of the navy needs to be noted here, and the wording is imprecise
  • The 'Design and description' section is confusing given that this ship was completed as an aircraft carrier, not a battleship. Tweaking this to make it clear that it was the original intended design would help.
  • "to intimidate the Berber tribesmen who could not reconcile themselves to French rule" - this is bit convoluted and euphemistic Nick-D (talk) 05:22, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking this over. See if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:11, 20 September 2020 (UTC) Support Sorry for being so slow to follow up here - I missed this reply and didn't think to look in. My comments are now addressed, and I'm pleased to support this interesting article. Nick-D (talk) 08:54, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Zawed edit

Lead

  • ...and had to divert for emergency repairs. divert where?

Construction and conversion

  • Shouldn't the "Société" part of the shipbuilder's name appear in the infobox?
    • Like the English "Company", Société is often omitted when referring to companies, so I've deleted it here to match the infobox.

Career

  • ...commissioned for sea trials on 1 September 1926 and commissioned on 5 December 1927,... suggest changing the first usage of "commissioned" to avoid the close repetition of that word.
    • The first commissioning really isn't that important, so I've deleted it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ship made one last training cruiser... typo here

This looks in pretty good order, only minimal issues identified. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 08:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Somebody must have fixed the typo already, 'cause I can't find it. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good, have added my support. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 07:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass edit

All images have appropriate licences. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hog Farm edit

Looks like this one's just one review away from passing, so I'll give it some attention. Hog Farm Bacon 20:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the infobox, indicate the the beam length you're using is the one at the flight deck
  • Where are you getting the 8.86 figure for the draft in the infobox? I'm not seeing that in the prose. In fact, the prose gives a different number.
  • "A week the carrier loaded aboard the reconnaissance squadron Escadrille 7S1 and the bomber squadron Escadrille 7B1, both equipped with Levasseur PL.4 aircraft" - This seems to be missing a word.
    • I'm not seeing this.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Sturmvogel 66: - The issue seems to be in "A week the carrier loaded". Seems like maybe there ought to be a "later" in there. Hog Farm Bacon 14:49, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • An excellent example of how what's in your head as the author makes you completely blind as to what you actually wrote!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:53, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On 8 May the carrier had aboard 10 D.1s, 5 LB.2s, 16 PL.4s and 3 CAMS 37s" - This overmatches the previously-stated max capacity of 32. Was it just normally overloaded, or were there changes to capacity in the remodels?
    • No, I think that it's just that the fighters were considerably smaller than the PL.4s and the seaplanes. Her airwing wasn't intended to have that many fighters, but they were transitioning between models so I guess that they needed more than usual numbers to facilitate the training on the new ones.
  • "1934–1935 Reconstruction" - Not convinced that the word in this section heading needs capitalized
  • "where the 155 mm gun had formerly been" - I'm assuming you mean the plural guns, right?
    • Good catch
  • You mention in the lead that she was very cost-inefficient to run as a barracks ship, although this isn't mentioned in the body.

That's it from me, I think. Hog Farm Bacon 23:09, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the detailed review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:16, 20 October 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_aircraft_carrier_Béarn&oldid=984526352"