Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of battleships of France/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 22:03:48 8 December 2019 (UTC).

List of battleships of France

 * Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 19:32, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

This list comprises the battleships built by France between the late 1880s and the 1940s, and is the capstone of another subtopic of WP:OMT. The list passed a Milhist A-class review in August and should be in pretty good shape. Thanks to all who take the time to review it. Parsecboy (talk) 19:32, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support by CPA-5

 * canceled vs. cancelled. Canceled is used in some of the sections.
 * Fixed, good catch
 * Service[38][39][23] of the Masséna's table, re-order the refs here.
 * Good catch
 * It is still strange that the Bouvet image isn't restored you sure it still works to you?
 * Yeah, it displays just fine on multiple devices - how odd
 * Quick drive by - it doesn't display for me either Cavie78 (talk) 12:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That's strange - I've checked it on home and work computers and my phone, and it works on all of them. I wonder if you need to purge the page? (See WP:PURGE for how to do it). Sometimes I have to do that with very large file uploads. Parsecboy (talk) 16:19, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Tried purging and accessing from multiple devices and still doesn't work. Weird Cavie78 (talk) 20:27, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Huh...does it work in the article on Bouvet itself? Parsecboy (talk) 22:54, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I did the same but it didn't work. And yes the image works in the Bouvet article. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:26, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That's odd - I was wondering if it was something to do with the fact that it was a .tiff file and not a .jpg or .png, but if it's working in the Bouvet article, then that can't be it. Parsecboy (talk) 11:59, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * - I asked at the Village Pump (here) and they suggested it was an image size problem - do you have your image display preferences set? Parsecboy (talk) 14:04, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

That's anything that I could find I probably forgot one, but I re-read it for a couple of times so it shouldn't be striking to my eyes. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:54, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * A lot of tables use "kn" and others "knots" maybe try to standardise them?
 * Think I've got them
 * Metric horsepower in the table Masséna, link it.
 * Done
 * it difficult to stay within the 11,000-ton limit while incorporating What kind of ton? Or doesn't the source say it?
 * It's already specified earlier in the paragraph
 * The six Dantons remained based at Corfu and Malta for much of the war First are speaking about the island of Malta or the group of islands? Second, if we are talking about the group of islands then we should use the Crown Colony's link.
 * No, just the island - linked to Malta (island)
 * as the total tonnage exceeded the 70,000 tons allowed before the building holiday What kind of ton? Or doesn't the source say it?
 * It's the same 70,000-long-ton limit as mentioned in the Dunkerque section
 * In the Alsace class's table at the armour part please use an em dash like the rest of empty parts.
 * Whoops - guess I forgot to put that field in.
 * Thanks CPA. Parsecboy (talk) 23:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * - anything left you'd like me to address? Parsecboy (talk) 21:27, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Great to see that the Bouvet image is back in its current state. No there is nothing else, support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 09:54, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support by PM
I went through this in detail at Milhist ACR, and really couldn't find a lot there. In general, this is a fine list, and despite the views of some about extended prose in the introduction of a list, the five para lead is entirely justified to put the list into proper context. I have a few comments, mainly from comparing the list to the class and ship articles: My eyes are spinning, down to Iéna, more to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * "intentionally sank the fleet" in the lead makes it seem like they fired on their own ships. Suggest "scuttled the fleet"
 * Works for me
 * Brennus' armour says 460 mm, but the article says 400 mm, and her displacement is rounded up from what is provided in her article, speed and power also vary from the article, also not sure about where the commissioned date is coming from?
 * Huh, Jordan & Caresse have a table on page 15 that gives the displacement as 11,400t, so I don't know where the figure in the ship's article is coming from (that'll be a question for, given that it's at FAC right now, I'd think)
 * Sturm took care of this part. Parsecboy (talk) 16:32, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * not for this list, but the laid down date in the infobox of Jauréguiberry doesn't reflect the body
 * Fixed that article
 * there is definitely something up with Bouvet's image. All I get is a thumb-box with the caption, no image shown
 * Does it display for you in the Bouvet article? It works fine for me there and here (though I'm having what is probably the same issue with File:USS Mississippi quarterdeck with flying boat 80-G-461428.tif in Greek battleship Kilkis). I've opened a thread at the VP here.
 * It works fine for me in the article on my desktop, but doesn't show up in the list.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:38, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The thought at VP is that it's because the infobox is specifying the image size at 300px, but if you have your preferences set to something else (or not set at all), it might be trying to display at a resolution that MediaWiki isn't able to produce for some reason. Parsecboy (talk) 16:45, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Doesn't work for me in the article either, and I get an error screen when I try to view the image itself. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:50, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Have you tried uploading this file again? Or using a different image of Bouvet from the article? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:17, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I've replaced it with a .jpg version. Parsecboy (talk) 18:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Problem solvered. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * not for this list, but the Charlemagne-class infobox says the belt was 320, when it was actually 400
 * Fixed
 * the Charlemagne-class article table says 15 October 1897 for Charlemagne's commissioning
 * Apparently there's a discrepancy between the class and the ship article - this is another question for Sturm, since he wrote both of those.
 * the Saint Louis laid down and commissioned dates don't match the class article table, same for the Gaulois commissioned date
 * Same as above
 * Only Gaulois had been upgraded, but I've made the table, the class article and the individual ship articles all consistent.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:13, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Ha, imagine writing it ;) Parsecboy (talk) 12:09, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

That's me done, these are mainly transcription errors by the look of them, unless the class articles aren't right. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:17, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Iéna's article says speed was 18 kn and the power here doesn't match the article either
 * These figures are from Jordan & Caresse; since Caresse wrote the Warship International articles Sturm used to write both of Wiki's, I have to assume he corrected an earlier mistake.
 * the power in Suffren's article isn't what is here
 * As above
 * the République class article has a range for full load displacement, but this list uses as designed?
 * Fixed
 * with the Liberté class, suggest giving the full dates in the table where known, rather than just the months for some
 * Done
 * the Danton class displacement is the standard one, not the deep load one, is that right? Also, the class article says shaft horsepower rather than metric horsepower here, with a commensurate difference in kW
 * Yes - J&C don't give the full load, and there doesn't seem to be a citation for it in the class article. And as above for the HP figure
 * wasn't the Bretagne class belt armour 270 mm? Also the class article gives the full load displacement as 26,000 tons, not 26,600 tones, the speed is 20 kn in the class article, and the class article has the power as 29,000 shp
 * These are all the figures per J&C - that article needs to be rewritten, and at some point Sturm and I will get to it
 * the Normandie class article says the belt was 300 mm, also there is a zero missing from the power, my whippersnipper has more grunt...
 * Fixed
 * the Lyon class power doesn't match the class article
 * Fixed the class article
 * the Richelieu class belt should be 327 mm and the displacement doesn't match the class article
 * Fixed
 * Thanks Peacemaker. Parsecboy (talk) 15:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments by Stuvmvogel_66

 * If the repair of Strasbourg is notable enough for the lead, so should that of Provence.
 * A fair point
 * Link main battery and turret in the lede. In Brennus, centerline, scrap. In Charles Martel: reserve
 * The first is linked in the 2nd paragraph, linked turret and the rest
 * There's some duplication between the Brennus material and the first para of the lede. I'd recommend that some of the detail in the latter be removed.
 * I included it there to avoid having to have citations in the intro
 * Now that I think about it, the ledes of lists are not not summaries of the content, but rather a general introduction to the topic and require citations. Check out the other lists of BBs by countries and I think that you'll find that they all have cites in the lede.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:01, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not how I've been writing lists - that's partly why I include more design stuff in the ship/class sections, so I can base the narrative of the lead on it. My reasoning is, even with lists, if it's worth mentioning in the lead, it should be explained in greater detail in the body. Parsecboy (talk) 12:46, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing a whole lot of difference in the type of content between the Japanese list and this one. And you really might want to look again at your German and Italian lists. They're fully cited while presenting the material in roughly the same manner as this one.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:41, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Those are ancient and need a lot of work ;) I'm talking about more recent practice (i.e., List of screw corvettes of Germany, List of protected cruisers of Italy, etc.) - I stopped writing leads that way after the first handful of lists I did. Parsecboy (talk) 17:49, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Looking it over, everything in the lede is cited, so it works.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:27, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Why are you converting CV into ihp/shp? They're close enough together that I think that a better conversion would be CV into kW like in the articles on the ships.
 * My reasoning was that if readers are familiar with ships, they're more than likely used to seeing things in ihp/shp, not kW
 * We have been converting ihp/shp to kW in all the individual ship articles, so why different now?
 * In my experience, figures are almost always given in sources measured in ihp/shp, not kW, so it makes more sense to me to convert from CV to ihp/shp, to make it easier for readers to make apples to apples comparisons.
 * The lists of battleships of Germany and Japan don't even mention power ratings.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:01, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You know, you're right - I haven't been including them in most of the lists I've done either - not sure why I did here. I'll cut it (and go back and update some old cruiser lists while I'm at it). Parsecboy (talk) 12:46, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * There should be a link to the article on the Allied effort to pressure the Greeks in the République section
 * Do we have an article on it? Or are you thinking about the National Schism or Noemvriana articles?
 * The latter is close enough, IMO.
 * Done
 * Down to the dreadnoughts, desperately in need of a nap, more later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Take a snooze, old man!
 * Link amidships
 * Done
 * the British Home Fleet and later to French Indochina missing word?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:00, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 17:58, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * A few minor issues to be resolved.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:33, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * - any further thoughts? Parsecboy (talk) 15:17, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Source review

 * Citations are properly formatted and consistent
 * References known to be highly RS by reputable authors
 * References are formatted consistently
 * Good to go--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:05, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Image review

 * All images properly licensed.
 * Surely File:French battleship Richelieu colorized.jpg would be better than the current photo for the Richelieu-class section?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:41, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed it would - thanks Sturm. Parsecboy (talk) 13:07, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

 * "Convinced of the need to follow suit with dreadnoughts of their own, the four Courbets were ordered in 1910 and the three Bretagnes followed in 1912." This is ungrammatical. You have to say they or the French ordered.
 * Good catch
 * "as World War I forced the French to cancel the Normandie and Lyon classes". This is not logical. Surely war is often a reason to increase warship construction, as with the Americans in WW2. If construction for the land war took priority, you should say so. PS I see you clarify this below, but a few words here would be helpful.
 * Done
 * "Illustration of Charles Martel underway" Is it really an illustration? It looks to me like a photo.
 * Yeah, it's an illustration of some sort - look at the bottom right corner - there's a signature I can't make out - something Gray or Grey, it looks like.
 * Was the poor seaworthiness of the five early ships due to the specifications laid down by the naval command or bad design by the architects?
 * Probably more the latter than the former, but both have their share of the blame - the fundamental problem was insufficient displacement for what the command wanted the ships to be able to do - this was fairly common in the period - the American Indiana-class battleships, built at about the same time, were also badly overloaded. And the displacement issue was generally imposed by legislatures that were at the time unwilling to spend vast sums on fleets of battleships (this was before Mahan had really caught on). With these ships specifically, the lozenge arrangement was pretty stupid, given the effective duplication of weight to carry four guns in four turrets instead of in two turrets - that was, as far as I'm aware, a fault of the designers, not the command's specifications.
 * "The Minister of the Navy, Auguste Burdeau, instructed the naval design staff to prepare a new battleship proposal" When?
 * Added the year
 * You use different weight conversions - e.g. Bouvet 12200 t, new weight limit 11000 t , Charlemagne 11275 MT . I think you should be consistent.
 * Tonnes and metric tons are the same - dunno why that one got specified to the American spelling (especially since it should have been abbreviated, and both variations use "t").
 * "The Board of Construction requested an improved version of the Charlemagne class" When?
 * Clarified
 * " but Patrie remained in service 1919" "until 1919"?
 * Fixed
 * "the center turret inflicted excessive blast damage on the superstructure". I do not understand this. Do you mean if the turret is hit by enemy fire?
 * No - when guns (of any size, but the effect is of course magnified the larger you go) are fired, there is are blast and flash effects as the projectile and propellant gasses exit the muzzle, and these can cause damage to things that are too close (imagine standing too close to this, or note the concussion demonstrated here) - ship superstructures are generally fairly lightly built to minimize weight high in the ship (since that can cause stability problems) so they're vulnerable to the concussion of guns fired too closely.
 * A first rate list. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:13, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Dudley. Parsecboy (talk) 13:42, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:10, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Giants2008 ( Talk ) 22:03, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.