Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/French battleship Brennus

Article promoted by Kges1901 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 01:20, 14 September 2019 (UTC) &laquo; Return to A-Class review list

French battleship Brennus
Instructions for nominators and reviewers
 * Nominator(s):, 

As part of our recent push bring French battleship articles to A- (and then FA-) class, we present for your consideration the first modern French battleship, named for your favorite sacker of Rome and mine. Thanks to a recently published (2019) article on the ship, the article is now up to snuff, and we look forward to reviewers' comments. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 17:09, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support by PM
This article is in good shape. I have a few comments: That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:06, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * is there an error with the redlink for centreline? I thought such things were just in the glossary of nautical terms?
 * Yeah, it should have been centerline (nautical)
 * suggest "three Marceaus"→"three-ship Marceau class"
 * Works for me
 * suggest "which was approved in 1889"→"and the design was approved in 1889"
 * Done
 * the p/p length and crew don't match between the infobox and the body
 * Fixed
 * the infobox gives 32 Belleville boilers, but the body doesn't say how many and just calls them plain water-tube boilers
 * Clarified in the text
 * the power output and speed don't match between the infobox and the body
 * Fixed
 * perhaps put the range in the infobox?
 * Done
 * the secondary guns were 164.7 mm or 164 mm? Rounding?
 * Rounding due to the official name of the gun, I'd imagine
 * the body says 14 × 37 mm guns, but the infobox only says 8 singles? Also, what about the revolver cannons
 * Fixed
 * any info available about the range of the torpedoes?
 * Friedman should cover this, but I don't have him in front of me at the moment
 * Added.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:37, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit confused about the belt in the infobox. Doesn't the body say the lower range was 180 mm?
 * That's at the bottom edge of the belt, above the waterline it was still 300 mm
 * Dspite
 * Fixed
 * "under Vice-amiral (Vice admiral) Alfred Gervais" or similar?
 * Done
 * move link to Toulon to first mention
 * Done
 * link Gaston Thomson
 * Done
 * Vice-amiral Fournier
 * Fixed
 * Thanks PM. Parsecboy (talk) 13:02, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:17, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support by CPA-5
That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:13, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * construction to keep the ship yards busy Merge ship yards.
 * Done
 * The ship introduced a number of advances Replace "a number of" with "several".
 * Done
 * In addition, the torpedo nets Replace "In addition" with "besides".
 * That doesn't work there, but how about "To further reduce weight..."?
 * and the messdecks for the Split "messdecks".
 * Done
 * Over the course of April, the ships visited Replace "Over the course" with "throughout".
 * Done
 * and displaced 11,370 metric tons (11,190 long tons) at deep load Link both tonnes.
 * Done
 * each driving a single 5.4-metre (17 ft 9 in), four-bladed British metre.
 * Fixed
 * Neptune and Marceau got 26% hits at a range Use percent not the symbole.
 * Done
 * Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 18:42, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks good in my view. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:40, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support by Harrias
Blimey, this ship sure crashed into a lot of other ships! Another nice, tidy article. As usual with these, I find my eye glazing over during the Design section, but I appreciate that it is all valuable information for those interested and knowledgeable about such things! Nothing major from me, just a few minor copy-edits. Harrias talk 08:44, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I guess it isn't the convention, but I think it would be more useful to state "Brennus, gallic chieftain" in the Namesake field in the infobox.
 * In the infobox, the p/p length uses "m", while the o/a length below it has "meters"; it would look better to keep both as "m".
 * I swear that I don't know how that one snuck in there.
 * What is a "lozenge pattern"; is there anywhere we can link for more information?
 * I added a parenthetical link to quadrilateral if that's helpful enough. If not, I can spell it out more explicitly.
 * That works for me. I admit, I'd only come across lozenge as a throat tablet, I wasn't aware of its use as a name of a shape! Learn something new... Harrias  talk 08:46, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * "Brennus proved to grossly overweight.." Missing a word; "..proved to be grossly.."
 * "..largely a result of her large superstructure.." Repetition of "large".
 * "..the actual rate of fire was about half that in service." As in one round per four minutes? (No change necessarily needed, just wanting to clarify.)
 * Yep, both the Russians and the French had problems with their rates of fire, which was one of the causes of the former's defeat at the Battle of Tsushima in 1905.
 * "..of which six of the latter were 5-barrel revolver cannon. Although cannon as a plural is not technically incorrect, it has more or less fallen out of use, so this would probably be better as "cannons".
 * Actually I still see it fairly often in the nautical literature so I'd prefer to keep it.
 * No worries, if it's common in the subject-area, that's fine. Harrias  talk 08:46, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * "..at its lower edge —only 25 cm— and.." emdashes should not be spaced.
 * Based on later usage, "..by Captain (Capitaine de vaisseau) Joseph Besson.." should be switched around to "Capitaine de vaisseau (Captain)" for consistency.
 * Thanks for looking it over regardless!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:12, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that came across a little more unkindly than I meant it! Happy to support with those tweaks, nice work. Harrias  talk 08:46, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Source review
(Yes, this are identical comments to my review of Japanese battleship Hatsuse, but only because they apply identically; a full review was still conducted. Harrias  talk 08:44, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Citations are formatted appropriately and consistently. (NFA)
 * Some FAC reviewers will complain about the mix of ISBN-10 and ISBN-13 however. (optional change, NFA)
 * I can't comment overly on whether the sources are considered reputable; but it is exclusively sourced to published offline sources which are likely to have undergone a robust review and editing process. (NFA)
 * As the sources are exclusively offline, I am unable to carry out any checks for close para-phrasing or copyvio, but I will AGF. (NFA)

G'day, if you have a sec, would you mind checking the image licensing on this one? As always, thanks in anticipation. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:04, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Image review


 * Suggest scaling up the map and figurehead
 * Done
 * File:Balearic_Sea_map.png: what is the source of the data presented in this map?
 * I don't know, and the creator hasn't really edited since 2011 - it's a basic geographic map, can I just say that it conforms with maps from, say, The World Factbook?


 * Sure. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:57, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * File:Brennus_mg_9724.jpg: as France does not have freedom of panorama, this needs a tag for the original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 10:27, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I've never seen a sculptor credited with any bow ornament (in fact, in a quick google books search to see if I could find any ship with a credited sculptor, the only thing I turned up was this book that references on page 214 the ornament from USS Pittsburg (ACR-4), but in the credit line, it says "unknown"). I'd assume the EU anonymous and generic PD-US tags should be sufficient here. Parsecboy (talk) 12:10, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Does the figurehead date to the ship's original completion date, do we know? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:57, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a good question - it doesn't appear to be there in this 1894 photo, but it's clearly present here (though it's undated). But the ship did not exist after 1922, so the ornament is obviously pre-1924. Parsecboy (talk) 14:48, 13 September 2019 (UTC)