Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/French battleship Suffren

< 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) 22:20, 2 February 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

French battleship Suffren edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

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

Toolbox

Another one of my ill-fated battleships, Suffren was the last predreadnought battleship built for the French Navy. She spent almost all of her career in the Mediterranean, frequently serving as a flagship. She was an unlucky ship before the start of World War I, twice colliding with other ships and she had a strange habit of breaking propeller shafts. Thoroughly obsolete by the beginning of the war, Suffren was ordered to the Dardanelles in late 1914 where she bombarded Ottoman defenses on multiple occasions. The ship was badly damaged when she collided with a British cargo ship at the end of the 1915. After repairs she spent most of 1916 in Greek waters. Suffren was ordered home to refit in November and she was sunk by a German submarine with no survivors en route. I've overhauled the article in preparation for an eventual FAC, although I'm sure that I missed a few things. I'd like reviewers to look for the usual suspects with particular attention to the prose.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:19, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5 edit

Claim my seat here. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 22:05, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • prevent any interference by the Greeks Pipe Greeks to the Kingdom of Greece.
  • with Allied operations on the Salonica front Link Allied and captalise front because of proper noun.
  • be an updated version of Iéna with modest improvements Link Iéna.
  • project was discussed by the Naval Council (French: Conseil des travaux de la Marine) Link Naval Council if posible and unlink French.
  • She was only slightly heavier than the Iéna --> "She was also slightly heavier than the Iéna"?
  • Replace metric tons to tonnes.
  • The ship's crew numbered 31 officers and 637 men as a private ship and 42 officers and 700 sailors as a flagship Peace of war times?
  • Link knots at the first time and unlink it in the second.
  • by two 600-ampere and three 1200-ampere dynamos --> "by two 600-ampere and three 1,200-ampere dynamos"
  • bulkhead 50 millimetres (2.0 in) thick subdivided the casemates Round the nought here.
  • During the summer of 1906 Suffren's above-water torpedo Do we know at least the month here?
    • Sadly, no.
  • Link Naval Ministry.
  • Should it be written in Oxford English or British English because I see the word "reorganized" in the article?
  • President of France is overlinked same with Contre-amiral, Bizerte and Ottman Empire.
  • Saint Louis and the torpedo cruiser Cassini to Port Said, Egypt Pipe Egypt to the Khedivate of Egypt.
  • Pipe German to the German Empire.
  • Toulon via Malta on 25 March Malto to the Crown Colony of Malta.
  • Link Dardanelles.
  • Greeks with Allied operations on the Salonica front --> "Greeks with Allied operations on the Salonica Front"
  • Link Gibraltar.
  • Ottman vs Turkish.
  • In the "File:Dardanelles_defences_1915.png" you can see the American defense.

That's anything from me. Looks like this one had to wait almost 10 years before it got nominated at ARC. But hey one day they all be will FAs. :) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:30, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching all the duplicate links and the remnants of AmEnglish.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good in my view. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:23, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Zawed edit

Lead

  • damaged during the major action of 18 March 1915; the major action lacks antecedence. Perhaps "a major action"?
    • Reworded
  • The wikilink for Allied is actually on its second mention, not its first.
    • Damn good catch

Design and description

  • Inconsistency between infobox and text in relation to range.
    • Damn computers, not putting down what I meant to say
  • 52.15 metric tons; numerals shouldn't start a sentence unless written out.
    • Reworded

Construction and career

  • Should there be a bracketed translation of Vice-amiral, like there is for Contre-amiral?
    • Indeed there should
  • When Suffren commissioned on 3 February 1904; was commissioned?
  • Link Allies (in the opening paragraph of the World War I section).
    • No, the link in the lede suffices
  • Link Kum Kale?
  • Admiral Guépratte and his squadron returned to the Gulf of Saros on 11 March; earlier his rank is given as Contre-amiral
    • Shouldn't be using his rank after the first mention

References

  • Gille is listed but not cited.

That's it for me. Zawed (talk) 09:24, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • See if my changes are satisfactory and thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:03, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good, added my support. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 01:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Harrias edit

  • "..she was assigned to the French squadron assigned to prevent.." Is there a way to rephrase to to avoid the repetition of "assigned"?
    • Reworded
  • "..12,432 tonnes (12,236 long tons) at normal displacement, and 12,892 tonnes (12,688 long tons) at full load, over 700 metric tons (690 long tons).." Is there any reason for the switch in terminology from tonnes to metric tons?
    • just my mistake
  • "gunswere" Typo.
  • "The short bombardment, during which Suffren fired 30 shells from her main guns, by the Allies did little damage.." This might work better reordered slightly: "The short bombardment by the Allies, during which Suffren fired 30 shells from her main guns, did little damage.."?
    • Good idea
  • "as close as 3,000 yards (2,700 m) to the forts." "to" doesn't sound right to me here, would "from" work better?

I picked up on a couple of other things, but they had been covered by Zawed above. Harrias talk 11:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from AustralianRupert edit

G'day, Sturm, not a lot from me (I mainly looked at sources): AustralianRupert (talk) 10:48, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • in the lead, move the link for "Allies" to the first mention
  • there is a mixture of British and US English, for instance "defense" but also "millimetre" and "draught"
  • ISBNs checkout (no action required)
  • there are no dub links or dab links (no action required)
  • the external links all seem to work (no action required)
  • English language sources all seem to be reliable based on authors/or publishers (no action required)
  • AGF for the Gille source based on the nominator's excellent track record (no action required)
  • nothing major (other than some passing mentions) cropped up from my Google Books search looking for other sources (no action required)
  • citation density looks good to me
    • Everything should be BritEng, but I think that you've caught the last surviving bit of AmEng. Is everything OK with cite and references formatting? I ask 'cause that's about the only thing that you didn't cover to explicitly turn this into a dedicated source review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:16, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • G'day, yes the citation/referencing format looks consistent to me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:36, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi AustralianRupert: Just checking if your comment above is indicative of a pass for the source review? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, yes, that's correct. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:15, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

Everything else checks out. Parsecboy (talk) 15:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking these over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:41, 29 January 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_battleship_Suffren&oldid=938875409"