Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/French battleship Liberté

Article promoted by Eddie891 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 01:20, 14 May 2021 (UTC) &laquo; Return to A-Class review list

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

This is another ill-fated battleship from Sturmvogel and me, and yet another one that was destroyed by an accidental explosion, which was the culmination in a series of major ammunition fires that resulted from unstable French propellant charges. The ship was in service for just three years, but nevertheless had a significant effect on French naval regulations after her loss. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 19:31, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support by Dumelow
Hi Parsecboy, looks excellent to me. I just had a few comments on the prose; some of these may be personal preference so feel free to ignore - Dumelow (talk) 08:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Liberté and the rest of 1st Squadron and the armored cruisers Ernest Renan and Léon Gambetta went on a cruise in the western Mediterranean in May and June, visiting a number of ports including Cagliari, Bizerte, Bône, Philippeville, Algiers, and Bougie. By 1 August, the battleships of the Danton class had begun to enter service, and they were assigned to the 1st Squadron, displacing the Liberté and République-class ships to the 2nd Squadron - you've not mentioned the 1st and 2nd Squadrons before. The last we heard (Sept/Oct 1909) the Liberté was in the 2nd Division of the Mediterranean Squadron.  Was there some reorganisation of the divisions/squadrons in between?
 * Good catch, added a line on the reorganization.
 * At 05:31 on the morning of 25 September, crewmen in other battleships began reporting seeing smoke coming from Liberté, originating from her forward starboard casemate. - "began reporting seeing" feels awkward to me
 * Fixed
 * But at 05:53 a tremendous explosion rocked the harbor. Liberté was badly damaged by the blast, - Maybe it's obvious but the article doesn't actually state at this point that the explosion was on the ship.
 * Good point, clarified
 * Liberté was badly damaged by the blast, with both central 194 mm turrets thrown overboard, the deck amidships collapsed, and the forward 55 m (180 ft) of the ship was completely destroyed - possibly something not right with the tenses here, reads a little bit strange to me. In relation to the 194 mm turrets I was unclear as to where these were located, without looking at the drawing (the reader is only told there are six single turrets).  Is it worth elaborating in the design section?
 * Good catch, the "was" is wrong. I've added a line in the design section on the arrangement of the turrets.
 * The forward turret was blasted apart, and only one of the guns was recovered, having been hurled into the muddy bottom of the harbor - maybe clarify that this was one of the 305 mm turrets? It follows quickly after mention of the 194 mm turrets.  "Hurled" is also repeated in the next sentence, perhaps a synonym can be used?
 * Done
 * An explosion aboard a gunnery training ship killed six in August 1908, and an explosion on a cruiser killed 13. - was the cruiser explosion also in August 1908? MOS:NUM would have both death tolls either as numerals or words, I think?
 * Added the date and fixed the numeral.
 * The wreck of the ship remained in Toulon until 1925, though work on clearing or marking navigational hazards began immediately. On 21 February, Liberté was refloated and towed into a drydock in Toulon, where she was broken up. I am presuming she was refloated in 1925? Perhaps would be clearer if reordered
 * Reworked slightly. Thanks Dumelow. Parsecboy (talk) 14:53, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Excellent, those changes read well for me and I am happy to support on the prose. One query, with regards the secondary turrets yous say The single turrets were arranged in pairs, one set abreast the funnels, another two amidships, and the third pair abreast the rear funnel should that be "one set abreast the forward funnels"?
 * Also, I know it is French practice not to use title case for books etc. but I have a feeling I have been picked up for being inconsistent between references before - Dumelow (talk) 16:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Both fixed as well. Thanks again. Parsecboy (talk) 20:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments by CPA-5
Just some nitpicks. Cheers. :) CPA-5 (talk) 15:44, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * carried a main battery of four 305 mm (12 in) guns Per MOS:UNITNAMES mm should be written fully.
 * Done
 * the ships of the 2nd Division crossed the Atlantic to the United States Atlantic Ocean is too common to link.
 * Removed
 * guns had a lower rate of fire than the smaller 164 mm (6.5 in) guns Same as the first comment.
 * Done
 * Ten days later, the combined fleet steamed to Cherbourg This is an MOS:EGG.
 * I don't follow; Cherbourg-en-Cotentin is commonly referred to simply as Cherbourg (which is why the short name redirects there)
 * The explosion threw a 37-metric-ton (36-long-ton; 41-short-ton) This is the only sentence where we use short tons?
 * Fixed
 * The navy convened a commission to investigate --> "The Navy convened a commission to investigate"?
 * I don't think "navy" here is acting as a proper noun (the same as you'd say "the 2nd Division" and "the division")
 * The Navy Minister also rescinded Who was he?
 * Still Delcassé
 * insufficient, but the navy only made modest improvements --> "insufficient, but the Navy only made modest improvements"?
 * Same as above
 * Thanks CPA. Parsecboy (talk) 22:24, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support by Zawed
This is in very good shape, it was hard to pick up any issues. That's it for me. Zawed (talk) 10:54, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Move the wikilink on Démocratie to its first mention.
 * Good catch
 * ...under control. But at 05:53... seems a bit jarring to start a sentence with "But".
 * Removed
 * Leon Gambetta is linked twice and the second link lacks the accent on the e of Leon that is present in the first link.
 * Fixed
 * No link or first name for Gaschard?
 * Looks to have been Jean
 * ...requiring that propellant charges older than four years would be discarded.
 * Fixed
 * Thanks Zawed Parsecboy (talk) 22:29, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks good, have added my support. Zawed (talk) 10:17, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Support by Tomobe03
As noted above, the article looks very good. I have just two issues to point out, but I'm not a native speaker of English so please ignore if I got something wrong.
 * Should the While Liberté's sea trials data has not survived... be "While Liberté's sea trials data have not survived..." since "data" is plural?
 * Wouldn't it be better to use "the same day" or "by the end of the day" or something similar instedad of repeating the date in [t]he navy convened a commission to investigate the incident on 25 September--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:15, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Source review - pass
Will conduct soon. Hog Farm Talk 23:41, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Sources are all reliable, and formatting looks fine.

Well, this is looking pretty good - doesn't seem to exclude significant sources, sources are RS and formatted correctly. Passing source review on the understanding that the pagination issue will be corrected. Hog Farm Talk 01:39, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "and possibly the other explosions as well" - going by the Gbooks pagination of the Windsor source, you want p. 653 for this citation, not p. 651
 * Fixed
 * This old edition of Compressed Air Magazine includes a one-page description of the refloating the Liberte, if that's something that's desired to be added and Compressed Air Magazine is HQRS.
 * Thanks for finding that, I've added it to the article. If only we knew which "old cruiser" was used to assist in the refloating effort. Parsecboy (talk) 10:01, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, I found it, it was French cruiser Latouche-Tréville. Parsecboy (talk) 10:15, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Image review - pass
All images are appropriately licensed. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  00:30, 14 May 2021 (UTC)