Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of pre-dreadnought battleships of the Royal Navy/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of pre-dreadnought battleships of the Royal Navy[edit]

List of pre-dreadnought battleships of the Royal Navy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 13:11, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This list, as the title suggests, comprises the pre-dreadnought type battleships built for the British Royal Navy - the Brits built so many battleships we had to split the lists into pre- and post-Dreadnought types to keep them manageable. I wrote the list last year and it passed a Milhist A-class review in February. I think it should be up to snuff, but I look forward to correcting any issues reviewers detect. Thanks in advance. Parsecboy (talk) 13:11, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Guerillero[edit]

Citation review --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:01, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Citation review

  • McBride 2005 doesn't need page numbers in the References section because of the footnotes
    • That's not right; long cites for articles should always include the full page range (see for instance the CMoS, under the "Journal article" heading).
  • The citations in the Further reading section is throwing of Harv errors
  • The sources are all reliable

Other thoughts

  • Take a gander at WP:ACCESS. I think the tables need titles
    • Good point - I've added captions for the tables, but I don't know if they're ok or not
  • Nothing is sortable, the tables are so small that I don't think that it is needed

--Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:13, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Guerillero. Parsecboy (talk) 19:48, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:50, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Very well written and organized. The images for each ship are very good as well. ~ HAL333 00:17, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - The article is clear well written. Perhaps it can be made more clear in the lead what set the Royal Sovereigns apart from earlier ironclad (British) battleships? It now says ‘introduced the standard layout associated with pre-dreadnought’. I am no expert but the layout of the preceding Trafalgar-class battleships looks somewhat similar. Was it the type of guns, armor, superstructure that set them apart. Pindanl (talk) 15:29, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

This list is in fine shape. A few nitpicks:

Lead
  • "over the combined French and Russian fleets"
    • Added
  • "led to the eight-ship King Edward VII class"
    • Done
Body
  • any reason why individual ships aren't linked at first mention in the narrative?
    • Not really - should be linked now
  • any reason why the ships in the tables aren't consistently listed in order of commissioning? What's the rationale for the order?
    • No, and that's a good question - I didn't do anything to the order of the tables when I overhauled the list. They should be fixed now
  • The conversion rounding on HMS Renown's guns could be tightened, the ship article says 254 mm?
    • Done
  • can you check the displacement of the Majestic class? Looks like LT and tons have been swapped here?
    • Good catch
  • "where Ocean and Goliath were"
    • Good catch
  • the Canopus-class battleship table is headed Summary of the Majestic class
    • Fixed
  • the displacement of the Duncan class is standard, not full load
    • Fixed
  • suggest "torpedoed by the U-boat UB-50" as you have done earlier
    • Done
  • the conversion of the displacement on the KEVII class table is rounded differently from the article
    • Fixed
  • not for this list, but the laid down date for Dominion in the KEVII-class article says 25 May 1902, not 23 May 1902
    • Typo in that article, I think
  • "sunk by the U-boat U-21"
    • Done

That's all I could find. Nice work. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:55, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks PM. Parsecboy (talk) 19:38, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, supporting. Nice work! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by CPA-5[edit]

Another list of ships this'll be (probably) a long review. Royal Sovereign class

  • for most of the pre-dreadnoughts built in Britain.[2][3][4][1] Re-order the refs here.
    • Fixed - adding the note mentioned above screwed up the ref order
  • Link Revenge, Royal Oak, Empress of India, Royal Sovereign, Ramilies, Hood, Repulse and Resolution.
    • Done per PM's comment above
  • refits except Hood, and afterward they were placed American afterward.
    • What's the British equivalent?
      • We say "afterwards". If the Hood was also put in reserve by 1904-1905 how about "Starting in 1900, all members of the class in the Mediterranean were recalled to Britain for refits except Hood, and by 1904–1905 they had all been put in reserve." But if they were all put in reserve during 1904-1905 how about "Starting in 1900, all members of the class in the Mediterranean were recalled to Britain for refits except Hood, and in 1904–1905 they were all placed in reserve."Chidgk1 (talk) 18:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey Nate long time no see. Anyway, could you please address this it's the last one who should be addressed before I'll give a support? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • After the start of the First World War in August 1914 WWI started in July maybe you could say "After the British entered the war in August 1914"?
    • Good point
  • Why is there in the Fate part a date when HMS Hood was sunk while the rest and their "broken up" don't have the day nor even the month?
    • Because the scuttling was a discrete event that took place on a single day and the process of breaking up a ship the size of a battleship is not (i.e., it takes many months, years even, and precise dates are less relevant [and generally not available in any case])

Centurion class

  • Link Centurion and Barfleur.
    • Fixed as above
  • She moved to Chinese waters in 1898 Wait about whom are we talking about?
    • Barfleur - Centurion was already on the China station - I figured the name didn't need to be repeated because of the context, but I can add it if it's not clear - let me know
  • I believe the image of HMS Centurion should have more descriptions like maybe a year or so?
    • Added

I don't really have much time today so I'll continue tomorrow. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Take your time - we're not going anywhere ;) Parsecboy (talk) 19:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Renown

  • again to carry the Duke and Duchess of Connaught MOS:EGG here.
    • No it's not - there was only the one couple of carried the title, so it's not unclear to whom the link refers
  • Pipe India to British India.
    • Done

Majestic class

  • Pipe Russia and Japanese to the Russian Empire and the Empire of Japan.
    • Done
  • Japanese Shikishima class and the battleship Mikasa Please clarify that these class were battleships.
    • Isn't it clear from the context? We're talking about how the Majestics were the benchmark of battleship design, and if the Shikishimas were copies, what else could they be?
  • Like in the Centurion class section may be better clarification of the image is needed?
    • I'm not sure what you mean by this
      • Is it possible to give more info in the image and let's say in the others too? An image with only the name of the ship is a little bit vague; I also am not an expert in the images policy but in general, they look odd to me.
        • Many of them don't have a year - the caption for the photo of Mars is, helpfully, "between 1896 and 1920".

The rest will continue later. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:47, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Canopus class

  • and Ocean supported operations in Africa British Africa is pretty big if you ask the Britons themselves can you at least clarify where or in which part of the continent.
    • Yes, and they operated all throughout Africa - Albion patrolled South Africa and took part in the campaign against German Southwest Africa

Formidable class

  • serving in succession in the Channel Link Channel and unlink English Channel next.
    • That "Channel" refers to the Channel Fleet, which is already linked
  • Don't understand why HMS Formidable isn't at the top in the table?
    • No doubt whoever created the table initially ordered it on which vessel was commissioned first, and I didn't notice that when I redid it

Gonna continue and I'll also reply to the rest of your responses tomorrow. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

King Edward VII class

  • It's strange that not all the ships are mentioned in the section's body?
    • They generally operated as a single unit, and it's much easier (and tidier) to simply refer to them as a squadron, rather than listing them out individually. Parsecboy (talk) 17:52, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's it from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from PMG[edit]

Is link to Bibliography of 18th–19th century Royal Naval history really needed in this list? I am asking because I don`t see additional value - there is References section in article. PMG (talk) 14:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not, but I also don't think it's doing any harm - it was in the See also section when I rewrote the list, so I left it. It isn't intended to function as a replacement to the References section, though. Parsecboy (talk) 20:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Woody[edit]

I haven't got much to say to be fair. The images add to the text and are suitably licensed. The references are of good quality. The prose flows well. I've got a couple of comments:

  • I tweaked a wikilink in the Sovereign Class to go to Cretan State via a redirect with potential.
  • In Majestic Class, what is the 1892 programme? The Renown section says 1892 construction programme but the concept of a programme or construction programme is never explained (via a wikilink or otherwise in the text).
    • Just the work that was budgeted for that year - major construction programs were generally laid out in laws (whether the Naval Defence Act 1889, the German Naval Laws, etc.), but of course not all ships of a given program could be built at the same time (or in a single year) so the work would be spread out over several fiscal years
  • I don't see the point of the see also section. I've been of the mind that a comprehensive article doesn't need a see also section as the links should be in the article. I don't see what the Bibliography article adds and all of the ship name lists are in the navigation box in the lead.
    • That's a fair point - removed.

That's it from me. A good read. Woody (talk) 17:45, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Woody. Parsecboy (talk) 14:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, nothing more from me after another read through so switched to support. Woody (talk) 15:14, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from The ed17[edit]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 03:50, 29 June 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:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_pre-dreadnought_battleships_of_the_Royal_Navy/archive1&oldid=1073368885"