Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/French battleship Bouvet/archive1

French battleship Bouvet

 * Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 13:49, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

The French battleship Bouvet was one of several older French and British battleships to meet a violent end during the Dardanelles campaign of World War I. I wrote an early version of the article many years ago, but as a number of other French battleship articles that have graced the FAC page of late, a new book published in 2017 allowed me to improve it considerably. The article has since passed a Milhist A-class review, and is hopefully up to snuff. Thanks to all who take the time to review it! Parsecboy (talk) 13:49, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support by PM
I reviewed at Milhist ACR late last year, so couldn't find a lot to quibble about. A few minor comments: That's all I've got. Nice job Nate. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:10, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * "much of the rest of the fleet was were used"?
 * Done
 * "should be 45 cm (18 in) thick"
 * Done
 * link sea trial
 * Done
 * link ship commissioning
 * Done
 * first name for Adam?
 * Nothing I was able to find, unfortunately - Jordan & Caresse aren't fond of first names for some reason
 * what was the Division de complément?
 * Added a translation
 * in some spots you use Contre-amiral, others Rear Admiral. Suggest consistency.
 * Good catch
 * link battlecruiser
 * It's linked earlier at the mention of Goeben
 * Thanks Peacemaker. Parsecboy (talk) 16:54, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:56, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support by WereSpielChequers
I made a couple of tweaks, hope you like them, if not it's a wiki....
 * Are you sure you saved them? I don't see any edits from you (or anyone else in some time)
 * I think I disappeared down a rabbithole and made some changes to linked articles. Have now reread the article.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  08:51, 5 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Have you considered mentioning who the ship was named after and how many other French war ships have borne this name?
 * It's there, in the box and then in the first para of the service history section
 * It is indeed, not where I expected but OK
 * Do you think the article should have a little about the subsequent fate of the wreck and her war grave status? this looks like an interesting source though it has different crew figures and a slightly different sinking narrative.
 * That's a good source, thanks for pointing it out. I added a section on the wreck. I'll have to go through and see what other articles can be updated with it.
 * Thanks.
 * In a service life of nearly two decades there is no mention of equipment upgrades, though the crew figures quoted for the time of sinking were very different to those at commissioning. If the French made no discernible changes to warships of that era during their service life that might be worth mentioning, alternatively if there were some upgrades it would be worth covering that
 * I'm sure there were changes made, but the sources don't mention any specifically - Jordan & Caresse have an appendix on wartime changes made to French battleships, but it seems Bouvet didn't survive long enough to see any, and they don't cover any pre-war changes to the older ships.
 * Thanks for the explanation, obviously we can't go further than the sources cover.
 * The photos are presumably the best available to us, though I do wonder at the assumption of life plus 100 years re a 1915 photograph, but have you considered using File:Masséna Carnot Jauréguiberry Bouvet.jpg as an illustration of Bouvet with three of her half sisters?
 * The issue is whether it's out of copyright - I'd assume it's fine in the US, but we don't have publication data for the specific edition of L'Illustration it came from

More generally, nicely written, a pleasure to read.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  07:30, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 18:30, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding to my queries, shifting to support.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  08:51, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done
 * The lead states a complement of 710 at time of sinking - not seeing that cited anywhere.
 * Fixed
 * Gardiner: the link and ISBN provided both correspond to the US edition, not the UK, and Worldcat lists two additional authors. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:11, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Corrected the ISBN. Parsecboy (talk) 16:11, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Ping. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Nikki. Parsecboy (talk) 16:11, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support by CPA-5
That's it I believe. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:54, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * displacement could be up to 14,000 tons Per MOS:UNITNAMES a long written unit in this case metric ton should be abbreviated after mentioning it once fully.
 * Done
 * displacement to around 12,000 metric tons (12,000 long tons) Same as above.
 * Done
 * She had a displacement of 12,200 metric tons (12,007 long tons) as designed Same as above.
 * Done
 * the outboard screws were 4.5 m (15 ft) wide Not a compound adjective?
 * Yes, but you don't use a hyphen with abbreviated units
 * she cruised at 17 to 17.5 knots (31.5 to 32.4 km/h; 19.6 to 20.1 mph) --> "she cruised at 17–17.5 kn (31.5–32.4 km/h; 19.6–20.1 mph" Per MOS:UNITNAMES short fully written units should be written "few" times so it has to be abbreviated.
 * I don't generally like to abbreviate knots as it's a less common unit of measure (and the benefit of removing three characters isn't so great). As for the horsepower figure, I purposely left that long, as the abbreviation isn't obvious (it's abbreviated as CV for French topics)
 * she reached 18.2 knots (33.7 km/h; 20.9 mph) from 15,462 metric horsepower (15,250 ihp) Per MOS:UNITNAMES in this case both short and long written units should be abbreviated.
 * The MOS says may, not should.
 * At a cruising speed of 9 knots (17 km/h; 10 mph) Same as above.
 * As above
 * combined output of 128 kilowatts (172 hp). What kinda hp?
 * Standard horsepower
 * armament consisted of two Canon de 305 mm Modèle 1893 guns First mention of mm and should be written fully.
 * Corrected the earlier figures from cm to mm.
 * smaller than the 305 mm guns, produced 460 millimeters (18 in) of iron penetration Should be abbreviated per above.
 * Done
 * This image "File:Bouvet in Toulon-Agence Rol-2.jpeg"'s "Bouvet at anchor, c. June 1912" should have a circa template.
 * Done
 * on the Aegean coast of the Gallipoli peninsula on 1 March --> " on the Aegean coast of the Gallipoli Peninsula on 1 March"
 * Done
 * "12,200 t (12,007 long tons; 13,448 short tons)" Remove short tons in the infobox also link both tons.
 * Done
 * "120 to 400 mm (4.7 to 15.7 in)" --> "120–400 mm (4.7–15.7 in)"
 * Done
 * Thanks CPA. Parsecboy (talk) 14:48, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * - anything left to address? Parsecboy (talk) 13:13, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Wow, I totally forgot this. I even can't remember it was still active. I had another look and I didn't find anything else so support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:56, 5 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Coord note - am I just not seeing an image review? --Ealdgyth (talk) 13:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No, there isn't one - I'll see if I can scare one up. Parsecboy (talk) 19:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Image review - all okay
In progress. There appear to be some images hosted on Wikipedia that qualify for hosting on Commons. I am transferring them now and will return to provide comment when complete. From Hill To Shore (talk) 20:48, 9 May 2020 (UTC) All images in the article as of this moment are perfectly fine. From Hill To Shore (talk) 12:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * File:French battleship Bouvet NH 64442.jpg - I am a bit wary of that licence. The image has an unkown author and unknown date and the licence states that "most" of the files on the website are in the public domain. I'm going to seek a second opinion on this one.
 * The vast majority of the images in the NHHC collection were collected by ONI for warship recognition purposes, which were either taken by US naval attaches or were obtained commercially (which indicates a pre-1924 publication for ships that predate that). As an example, I'm blanking on his name at the moment (but this has come up in another FAC on a French battleship), but the US naval attache to France during World War I amassed a collection of several hundred photos of French warships just during the conflict. Absent an indication on the NHHC page to the contrary, we can assume their photos are safe to use. Parsecboy (talk) 10:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've been having a debate about this one over at Commons. The other editors agree that the NHHC's declaration establishes its PD status for the US, so it is safe to remain and be used on English Wikipedia. However, it can't be moved to Commons as we can't establish a secondary licence; if we knew any one of date of publication, country of origin or author, we could probably find a Commons licence that could work. Failing that, the PD assumed status will kick in on 1 January 2036, so it can be migrated then. As the licence is okay for Wikipedia, I can't see any problem with using it in the article. From Hill To Shore (talk) 12:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * File:French battleship Charles Martel illustration.jpg - The image was created over 120 years ago so is eligible for the PD assumed tag. I've transferred it to Commons.
 * File:French battleship Bouvet at anchor.jpg - The author died 90 years ago, so I have transferred it to Commons.
 * File:Bouvet in Toulon-Agence Rol-2.jpeg - The licence is incorrect here as the artist is recorded as a photographic agency but it is licensed as the author being dead for 100 years. I am going to seek a second opinion.
 * This one is resolved. The source confirms it is PD and I have replaced the licence. From Hill To Shore (talk) 00:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * File:Balearic Sea map.png - All fine with this one.
 * File:Bouvet in the Dardanelles.png - This one looks okay. I think it is eligible for transfer to Commons but I am going to seek a second opinion.
 * Given that it was published in 1916 in an US publication and most likely was first published there given that the photographer was probably also an American. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. I checked the source last night, added a link, updated the author field, changed the licence and moved it to Commons. All fine with this one now. From Hill To Shore (talk) 10:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * File:Bouvet capsizing March 18 1915.jpg - I'm not too sure of this one. The Imperial War Museum says the author is unknown but Commons has it licensed with a claim of expired Crown Copyright. While it is quite likely that the photograph was taken by someone serving in the Royal Navy, we can't say that with certainty. All we can say is that the photograph ended up in the collection of Surgeon Oscar Parkes. Unless there is some other evidence to support authorship by a serving member of the British forces, we can't assume that the licence is valid. I'd advise replacing this image unless the licensing can be clarified. The file will be eligible for PD assumed status on 1 January 2036 if the UK gov licence can't be confirmed.
 * If it was published in 1915, it's PD in the US which is all what enWikipedia cares about. Of course, it might be deleted on Commons then we'd need to upload a copy locally with the tag Template:PD-USonly. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. I was the one who found the original publication and updated the licensing on the file. I just hadn't updated the comment here yet. Both of these last two should be fine now. From Hill To Shore (talk) 10:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * File:Bouvet sinking March 18 1915.jpg - Like the file immediately above, this file has an unknown author. However, I can't find the catalogue record online, so it is probably not digitised yet at IWM (or if it is, it is filed with an odd name). The file has catalogue number SP682, so is likely another part of Surgeon Oscar Parkes' collection. Commons has it licensed with a claim of expired Crown Copyright. While it is quite likely that the photograph was taken by someone serving in the Royal Navy, we can't say that with certainty. Unless there is some other evidence to support authorship by a serving member of the British forces, we can't assume that the licence is valid. I'd advise replacing this image unless the licensing can be clarified. The file will be eligible for PD assumed status on 1 January 2036 if the UK gov licence can't be confirmed.
 * As above, I found these last two in a source published in 1915. That covers US copyright. There is a caption in the source in French about the picture being taken by the English, which I would like to get translated. Hopefully that is the evidence I need to support the UK gov licence but reuse here should be fine with the US licence per Jo-Jo Eumerus above. From Hill To Shore (talk) 10:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing so much leg work for me! Parsecboy (talk) 10:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)