Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/French battleship Courbet (1911)/archive1
Blurb review
editPinging the nom and supporters, @Sturmvogel 66, Casliber, Moisejp, and Peacemaker67: hi guys, this one was just promoted. Could three or four of you take a minute to read the following suggested TFA blurb, and feel free to make changes or ask questions? Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 14:32, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Courbet was the lead ship of her class of four dreadnought battleships, the first ones built for the French Navy. In World War I, after helping to sink the Austro-Hungarian protected cruiser SMS Zenta in August 1914, she provided cover for the Otranto Barrage that blockaded the Austro-Hungarian Navy in the Adriatic Sea, and often served as a flagship. Although upgraded several times before World War II, she was not considered to be a first-line battleship by the 1930s and spent much of that decade as a gunnery training ship. A few weeks after the German invasion of France on 10 May 1940, Courbet was hastily reactivated. She supported Allied troops in the defence of Cherbourg during mid-June. As part of Operation Catapult, she was seized in Portsmouth by British forces on 3 July and was turned over to the Free French a week later. She was used as a stationary anti-aircraft battery and as an accommodation ship there.
It sounds fine to me. Moisejp (talk) 16:25, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- The only issue I have is the very short sentence about when she was completed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:48, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks. I don't have an opinion one way or the other. - Dank (push to talk) 17:04, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- I think the short sentence should be appended onto the previous one somehow. Not strongly but it is rather short.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 17:33, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- I put (1911) in the first sentence and "In World War I" in the second sentence ... does that work? - Dank (push to talk) 17:54, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- Personally I don't think the (1911) is needed, we don't usually disambiguate ships within leads or TFA blurbs, AFAIK. The rest looks fine to me. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:11, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- Removed the "(1911)". - Dank (push to talk) 00:15, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- Personally I don't think the (1911) is needed, we don't usually disambiguate ships within leads or TFA blurbs, AFAIK. The rest looks fine to me. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:11, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- I put (1911) in the first sentence and "In World War I" in the second sentence ... does that work? - Dank (push to talk) 17:54, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- I think the short sentence should be appended onto the previous one somehow. Not strongly but it is rather short.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 17:33, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks. I don't have an opinion one way or the other. - Dank (push to talk) 17:04, 27 January 2019 (UTC)