Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Normandie-class battleship

Article promoted by Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 09:20, 23 May 2019 (UTC) &laquo; Return to A-Class review list

Normandie-class battleship
Instructions for nominators and reviewers
 * Nominator(s): and 

The Normandie-class dreadnoughts were part of an ambitious French naval expansion program begun in 1912 to replace most of the older battleships in the French Navy that had been rendered obsolete with the British completed HMS Dreadnought in 1906. Limited by inadequately-sized docks, the French decided to minimize the length of the ship by concentrating their armament into three quadruple-gun turrets, the first navy to do so. Concerned about the inefficiencies of the direct-drive steam turbines at cruising speeds, they decided upon a unique hybrid system using old-style triple expansion steam engines for cruising and steam turbines for higher speeds. All five ships were still under construction when WWI began and were suspended for the duration. After the war, the navy considered finishing them or modifying them to incorporate the experiences learned during the war, but the government's perilous financial state prevented any such major expenditures. The least advanced ship, Béarn, was converted into an aircraft carrier during the 1920s and later became an aircraft transport before she was scrapped in 1967. Parsecboy and I have significantly reworked the article to meet the A-class criteria and we'd like reviewers to look for unexplained jargon and stray bits of BritEng in preparation for an eventual FAC.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:13, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Image review


 * File:Plan_normandie.jpg: not seeing that licensing at source site? Same with File:Avant_normandie-3d.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:11, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Deleted them and have requested that they be deleted from Commons.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:26, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments: G'day, nice work, I have the following suggestions/observations: AustralianRupert (talk) 05:38, 3 March 2019 (UTC) Parsecboy (talk) 11:45, 18 March 2019 (UTC) Comments: Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * lead says they displaced 25,280 t, but I couldn't find this in the body of the article
 * Umm, first para of the description section.
 * The closest I could find in the first paragraph is "25,250 metric tons". Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:13, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There's the discrepancy! Fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * the infobox mentions the Lyon and Dunkerque class, but I don't see these mentioned in the body of the article
 * And you won't; they're mentioned for navigational purposes
 * I'd suggest adding these to the body of the article, but I've been told this isn't the norm for ship articles, so I won't die in a ditch over it (or on a hill for that matter). AustralianRupert (talk) 09:13, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmm, when I include links to other ship classes, it's usually in the context of, say an article on the "Y class", something along the lines of "the 'X' class design was used as the starting point for work on design 'Y'", but I don't generally go back to the "X class" article and say that "the later Y class was a development of the X design". I wonder if that's something we should pay more attention to. What are your thoughts on that, Sturm?
 * I dunno; I'd like to think that most readers will understand that ship design is generally evolutionary, but... I think that we've really only mentioned thus far how a ship (class) design influenced everything that came after it in the case of revolutionary ships like Gloire/Warrior/Dreadnought, or if you're really paying attention, Nevada. But even in the literature, you really don't see much mention of how a particular ship or class was influenced later ships, because the credit is covered a few pages later in the section on the later class. We don't have that linerality thanks to hypertext, but I'm still not sure if we ought to do this sort of thing more.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * no disambig or dup links (no action required)
 * the images lack alt text, suggest adding it in (suggestion only)
 * could steam for 6,500 (body) v. {[xt|6,600 nmi (12,200 km; 7,600 mi) at 12 knots}} (infobox)
 * forced draught --> "forced draft"?
 * on the roof. 266-millimeter (10.5 in) plates...: best not to start a sentence with numerals, suggest rewording
 * protected the sides of the conning tower were: typo?
 * though she was used as a ferry for aircraft --> perhaps mention specifically that the ship did not see combat and spent most of the war in Martinique?
 * in the References, is there an ISSN or similar for Warship International?
 * Thanks for catching all of these. See if my changes suit.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:30, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The changes look fine; just one follow up query above. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:13, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I have made a number of WS edits to break up paras into topics.
 * Did the Bretagne also use a hybrid propulsion system? The wording suggests this, but also could be read to suggest this was novel on the Normandie.
 * How so? There's a semi-colon separating the two proposals.
 * "On 22 November, days after the" - it seems this should be the start of a new section?
 * "The need to engage targets at longer ranges" - need to explain why.
 * I believe that I've address your comments, see if they're satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry Storm, busy IRL. Yes, all looks good now! Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:41, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support by CPA-5
I only have minor comments.
 * "8.84 m (29 ft 0 in)" In the infobox the inch isn't necessary.
 * Good catch
 * and a mean draft of 8.84 m (29 ft 0 in) at full load Same as in the infobox.
 * Fixed
 * Hey Parsecboy, the changes are maybe made but both "29.0 ft" (in the lead and the infobox) have an unnecessary oh. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:25, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Whoops, must've gotten distracted when I thought I was fixing those - both done now. Parsecboy (talk) 18:29, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You may've been busy at that time. But it looks good I'd say good to go. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:41, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:33, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * were only 50 millimeters (2.0 in) thick to save weight The 0 isn't necessary.
 * Fixed
 * for a width of 7 meters (23 ft 0 in) along the centerline Inch isn't necessary.
 * Done
 * Thanks CPA - at some point, Sturm and I will think to look for these beforehand ;) Parsecboy (talk) 17:18, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Comments and support by Pendright
Lead:
 * ... after the outbreak of war in 1914.
 * Consider "World War I".

Development:
 * These dimensions limited the ship to a displacement of around 25,000 metric tons (24,605 long tons) and a speed of 20 to 21 knots (37 to 39 km/h; 23 to 24 mph), depending on the armament arrangement.
 * Is it the ship or a ship?
 * Is it a displacement or the displacement?
 * Is it a speed or the speed?
 * Is it the armanent or an armament arrangement?
 * Changed "ship" to "design"

Description:
 * The four ships had a pair of four-cylinder vertical triple-expansion engines that drove the two outer three-bladed, ... propellers for steaming astern or cruising at low speed.
 * Steaming astern? Astern propulsion


 * Normandie and Flandre had license-built Parsons turbines, Gascogne had turbines from by Rateau-Bretagne,
 * ... turbines from by?


 * The ships were designed to carry 900 t (890 long tons) of coal and 300 t (300 long tons) of fuel oil, but up to 2,700 t (2,700 long tons) of coal could be stored in the hull.
 * "t" for tons here & elsewhere?


 * At a cruising speed of 12 knots (22 km/h; 14 mph), the ships could steam for 6,600 nautical miles (12,200 km; 7,600 mi); at 16 knots (30 km/h; 18 mph), the range fell to 3,375 nmi (6,250 km; 3,884 mi), and at top speed, the cruising radius dropped to 1,800 nmi (3,300 km; 2,100 mi).
 * Crusing radius - would range be the better word?

Armenent:
 * The ships were also have been equipped with six ...
 * Were also have been?

Protection: Constrction and cancellation:
 * There are conversions(to inches or feet) lacking in each of the three paragraphs of this section?
 * They're only converted on first use.
 * Béarn had been planned to be ordered on 1 October 1914, but it as brought forward to 1 January; ...
 * but it as?

Progress:
 * ... because new vessels incorporating the lessons of the war could not be completed for at least 6 to 7 years, due to the lengthy design studies such
 * MOS: In general, write whole numbers from zero to nine as words.

Done - Pendright (talk) 02:34, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your eagle eyes! I've always said that I'm a poor editor of myself. See if I've addressed your comments satisfactorily.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:11, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Supporting - Pendright (talk) 00:31, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello gentlemen I reckon one of you have some work to do here. Or am I wrong? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:33, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Source review by Factotem
Bibliography
 * The ISBN provided for Friedman's Naval Weapons of World War I appears to relate to a 2012 edition published by Seaforth, according to Worldcat, which lists the 2011 edition published by the Naval Institute Press with ISBN 9781612519487 and in EBook format. I can see no page count for the EBook edition, but in my experience EBooks often have a different pagination to printed editions, so this may be an issue.


 * FYI: The ISBN for Gardiner & Randal's Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships: 1906–1922 is in ISBN-10 format, whereas all others are ISBN-13. This is an extreme nitpick that is sometimes picked up at FAC, though it's no reason to object either here or at FAC.
 * The Worldcat listing for Jordan and Caresse's French battleships of World War One gives the publisher as the Naval Institute Press, not Seaforth as stated in the article.
 * I appear to have swapped the publishers between this book and Friedman.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:23, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Infobox
 * I see no support in the main text for the infobox assertions that the class was succeeded by Lyon or Dunkerque classes;
 * And you won't as it there for navigational purposes only.
 * Don't see how that exempts the information from the requirement that it be sourced. Isn't it possible to mention this info in a simple statement in the main narrative? Factotem (talk) 12:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It's entirely possible that I'm being excessively nitpicky on this. I believe all infobox data should be sourced by statements in the main body, but if the MILHIST co-ords and/or other reviewers do not consider this to be an issue, then I'll accept that. There's nothing else in the sourcing to concern me. Factotem (talk) 12:07, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * "2 × triple-expansion steam engines" appears only in the design, not in the description (the rest of the propulsion data in the infobox is supported by statements in the Description section);
 * Umm, The four ships had a pair of four-cylinder vertical triple-expansion engines
 * My bad. Factotem (talk) 12:28, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Armor Belt "240–300 mm", but in the main article Protection section the minimum thickness appears to be 80mm;
 * Good catch
 * I see no support in the main text for the infobox assertions about turret and conning tower armour thickness.
 * Umm, The turrets were protected with an armor thickness of 300 millimeters on their faces, 210 mm on the sides, and 100 millimeters on the roof. The sides of the conning tower were 266 mm thick and its roof was also 100 millimeters thick
 * Also my bad.Factotem (talk) 12:28, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

General That's all. Factotem (talk) 11:58, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * With the exception of the infobox issues noted above, I see no issues with unsourced material in the article.
 * A quick Gbooks search for "Normandie-class battleship" did not reveal anything to suggest the article is not a comprehensive review of all appropriate sources (so OK there).
 * Thanks for looking this over; I'm still a bit puzzled how I managed to swap publishers between those books, although they're not the first copies that I've owned of either.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:23, 17 May 2019 (UTC)