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)reply
CommentsSupport by PM
I reviewed at Milhist ACR late last year, so couldn't find a lot to quibble about. A few minor comments:
"much of the rest of the fleet waswere 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.
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. ϢereSpielChequers08:51, 5 April 2020 (UTC)reply
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
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)reply
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)"
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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.
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)reply
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)reply
Yes. I was the one who found the original publication and updated the licensing on the file.
[3] 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)reply
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)reply
Closing note: This
candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see
WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the
bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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)reply
CommentsSupport by PM
I reviewed at Milhist ACR late last year, so couldn't find a lot to quibble about. A few minor comments:
"much of the rest of the fleet waswere 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.
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. ϢereSpielChequers08:51, 5 April 2020 (UTC)reply
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
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)reply
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)"
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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.
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)reply
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)reply
Yes. I was the one who found the original publication and updated the licensing on the file.
[3] 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)reply
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)reply
Closing note: This
candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see
WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the
bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.