Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Dreadnought

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article promoted by Woody (talk) 00:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Dreadnought

A number of people, myself included, did a great deal of work on this article about a year ago. Reviewing it now, I think it's pretty much ready for A-class. The article was forked from Battleship (a 2007-vintage FA) and has been very substantially expanded. I'm also confident there are enough people involved with the subject to fix any problems that the review might come up with. Regards, The Land (talk) 12:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - There doesn't seem to be anything on the cultural impact of the Dreadnought - the race between Britain and Germany pre-WWI, 'We want Eight and we won't Wait' and so forth. I wouldn't mind seeing a section on that. Skinny87 (talk) 17:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The naval arms race is certainly covered: Dreadnought#The_Anglo-German_arms_race. Not particularly covered in cutural terms, but I'm not sure it had any lasting cultural (as opposed to political) impact. The Land (talk) 22:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment

• It could do with a bit of the copyedit. I've noticed, just in the lead, one ref before punctuation, and one stylistic error "scheme and revolutionary and steam turbine propulsion."
• "They would need to do so, because torpedo ranges" Remove the comma.

Rewritten.

• Every single paragraph needs to be referenced, at least at the end of it. I notice at least one in the Mixed-Caliber section that isn't referenced and several others throughout.
• Watch repeat linking; I noticed this with several topics, including King Edward VII class.
• WP:UNLINKDATES
• You link to Pre-Dreadnaught earlier, in the lead, therefore the See Also section can be removed.

Sorted/

Besides these it was a very interesting article to read, please fix them and it'll be great. – Joe Nutter 18:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think repeat linking is much of a problem in an article like this one. I am reading articles about warships, I find it irritating to read that an innovation was introduced on a particular class, then need to scroll back up to the top of the section or page, and find the instance of the class name that is linked. Much better to have a direct link in that sentence. As the relevant part of the MOS says, "The purpose of links is to direct the reader to a new spot at a point where the reader is most likely to take a temporary detour due to a need for more information" - and frequently those points occur when we have said something interesting about a class of ship, which in this article is rarely the first time it is mentioned.

Eh, fair point.– Joe Nutter 22:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, referencing could be improved in the 'Dreadnoughts in Other countries' and 'Super-dreadnoughts' sections - will get onto that

this evening.

Thanks for your comments! The Land (talk) 18:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments - very quickly before I leave to go to a family gathering.

• Punctuation before refs (second para of lead, ref #24)

Fixed lead; ref 24 seems to be after the stop.

• Need a ref for the first para of the 'All-big-gun mixed-calibre ships' section.

Am sure I can find one when I get back home - but bera in mind the first paragraph is simply a summary of the rest of the section.

• Do you use endashes for page ranges in your refs? (just checking)

I don't know. And frankly, who cares?

MOS:ENDASH does. :) Not something I'll oppose on, but FAC will roast you on a spit over them, so I always try to ask when reviewing A-class articles.

I am quite happy to go into an FAC with serene ignorance over the type of dash used in the footnotes. ;-) The Land (talk) 19:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

LOL! On second thought, when I go through the refs later to go to "Author, Title, p. __", I'll change the page ranges to endashes at the same time. Not too hard, just repetitive. Allanon ^{♠The Dark Druid♠} 00:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• Can we get U.S. Battleships moved to the bibliography to avoid the odd-looking "Page 51, Friedman, Norman, US Battleships, an Illustrated Design History, pub Naval Institute Press, 1985, ISBN 0-87021-715-1" (Ref #17)?

Sorted.

• There are a lot of one and two sentence paras...not something that I will oppose this for, but still. :)

Yes, I know, it's really the way I write when I'm constructing articles. Normally, they can be solved just by removing some returns.

• I will try to do a more detailed reference check tomorrow or when I get home. Cheers! (this was Allanon)

TVM! The Land (talk) 20:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Np! Allanon ^{♠The Dark Druid♠} 05:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Ed17/Allanon Oppose for now See below - (based on this older version, and I believe that any ref #'s in this are off by one or two...sorry...I was offline!) - so I’m writing this while I am riding down to my Aunt’s, so if some comments seem trivial and “he could have fixed these himself”, well…I really can’t (no wi-fi!). :) I’m going through it line-by-line, so don’t take offense some trivial things that I point out – I just want to point them out to you. If I’m wrong and what I point out does not need changing, that’s fine; it’s better to be safe than sorry! :) One last thing: I’m doing this on Word because I just lost an hour’s work of reviewing the article just now because of this stupid computer…. so apologies in advance for the curly quotation marks.

Lead

• The Imperial Japanese Navy had begun work on an all-big-gun battleship in 1904, but changed the design to a more conventional one[1]; the U.S. Navy was also building all--big-gun battleships.”
  
  • ”Conventional”? I may know what you mean, but please explain for the laymen.
  • double hyphen
  • ”all-big-gun” is used twice. Can you reword this to remove one or the other?

Not easily in the context... still scratching my head about it. The Land (talk) 18:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Not a big deal. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 00:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• ”The arrival of the dreadnoughts sparked a new arms race, principally between Britain and Germany but reflected worldwide, as the new class of warships became a crucial symbol of national power.”
  • A new arms race? When was there one before? I think that “naval arms race” would suffice…

Yes, they were already engaged in an arms race - perhaps "renewed" is better...

How does it look now? The Land (talk) 18:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Better. :) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 00:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• • …”reflected worldwide in places as far away as Argentina and Brazil” would be a nice addition – it shows just how world-wide it was.

Not sure - if we mention them we almost have to mention Japan as the only asian power... and then we have a bit of a list of countries. The Land (talk) 18:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Good point. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 00:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• ”Technical development continued rapidly through the dreadnought era, with rapid changes in armament, armour, and propulsion, meaning that ten years after Dreadnought's commissioning much more powerful ships were being built.”
  • Rapid increases you mean?

Improvements. The Land (talk) 18:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• • ”Much more powerful” than Dreadnought you mean? Please clarify.
• ”These more powerful vessels were known as super-dreadnoughts.”
  • Any reason for the bolding? Just double checking.
• ”The only pitched battle between fleets of dreadnoughts was the Battle of Jutland, an indecisive clash that reflected Britain's continuing strategic dominance.”
  • Transition from the preceding sentence? This comes out of nowhere….
  • is the second part of this needed? (“Indecisive clash…dominace”) I think that the link might suffice.
    • It works now. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 00:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
• ”Most of the dreadnoughts were scrapped or scuttled after the end of World War I, though some of the most advanced super-dreadnoughts continued in service through World War II.”
  • Please mention the Washington Naval Treaty somewhere in here.
  • This is slightly misleading…I’m not going to try and write out my eloquent reply that I lost because of my stupid computer, but at least 5 U.S. dreadnoughts and something like 5 classes of “super-dreadnoughts” dating from WWI all saw service in WWII.
• Can’t see it right now w/o internet, but the Alaska-class battlecruiser article has a ref in the lead that describes them as the “last dreadnoughts” or something of the like. Would that help the last sentence of the lead?

Good thought, but saying the Alaskas were the last dreadnoughts opens a real can of worms which I don't want to go near. The Land (talk) 19:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Good point, so striking. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 00:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Origins

• The first para needs (a) ref(s), though the last sentence can be covered by page 52 of Friedman’s U.S. Battleships

I have added that. The general comments about what pre-dreadnoughts had is well covered in pre-dreadnought.

Well...I guess that those are very general things. :) FAC may require cites for everything, though, so be prepared to add one. :P —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 00:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• A note may help by “USS Michigan” explaining that even though she was the second ship of the ‘’South Carolina’’ class, she was laid down and launched before her sister.

Not sure it's necessary.

Good point; this was uneeded typing. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 00:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• If you want to double-cite, the authorization date can be covered by page 63 in U.S. Battleships.
• However, page 419 says that Mich was laid down on 17 Dec 1906….not May as is stated in the article. Is something wrong here?

Evidently. Sondhaus does say May 1906 (though on page 202 not 199!) - however Friedman is more authoritative. The Land (talk) 19:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

K, slashed. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 00:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Long-range gunnery

• Comma needed: “For instance(COMMA) at Santiago, …”

*”These were short-range engagements.”

• • ? What were?
• Just read through this first para and reorganize it please…to me, it is awfully confusing. =/
• Please be consistent with “U.S.” or “US”, even in the references.

*”"Moreover at long ranges gunners had to 'spot' the fall of shot to correct their aim... The longer the range, the lower the maximum theoretical rate of spotted fire."[15]”

• • Is the emphasis yours or the references’?

All-big-gun mixed-calibre ships

• As I said before, ref(s) are needed for the first para.

Sorted and tweaked subsequent paragraphs to address the issues listed below.

*”The June issue of Proceedings of the US Naval Institute contained an article by US Navy's leading gunnery expert Prof P.R Alger proposing a main battery of eight 12-inch guns in twin turrets. Future chief constructor David W. Taylor responded, suggesting battleships of the future would be powered with steam turbines.[17]”

• • Year please (i.e. add “1902” (the book is right here in front of me lol))
  • Now wait. I’ve got U.S. Battleships, and Taylor didn’t “respond” – their comments were published in the same issue! Also, the magazine published “comments” from the two, not full article(s).
  • Also, these “comments” were in response to a March 1902 article by one Lieutenant Matt H. Signor who was arguing for a BB with two triple 12” turrets and two triple 10” turrets. It might be worth mentioning that, even if you only mention that Alger and Taylor were “responding to a proposal to build all-big-gun mixed-calibre battleships” (my words, use them in article if you wish)

I think Signor is a bit of a red herring here... we are trying to trace the origins of the all-big-gun idea in the USA, and talking about Signor's paper is probably just going to confuse the casual reader. Obviously he features in Friedman's account but I do not think it's necessary to give so much detail here. The Land (talk) 19:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Alright; you're the expert...I'm just throwing ideas out there. :) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 01:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

*”The June issue of Proceedings of the US Naval Institute contained an article by US Navy's leading gunnery expert Prof P.R Alger proposing a main battery of eight 12-inch guns in twin turrets. Future chief constructor David W. Taylor responded, suggesting battleships of the future would be powered with steam turbines.[17] In May 1902, the Bureau of Construction and Repair (BuC&R) submitted a design for the Mississippi-class battleship with twelve 10-inch guns in twin turrets, two at the ends and four in the wings.[17]”

• • June => May? Aren't you stepping backwards?
• Third para, first sentence. An endash is needed between the year range.

The switch to all-big-gun designs

• You link to William S. Sims here with just “Sims”. Spell out his name please…*”It is often argued a uniform calibre was particularly important because the risk of confusion between shell-splashes of 12-inch and lighter guns, which is held to make accurate ranging difficult. More recent investigation suggests firecontrol in 1905 was not advanced enough to use the salvo-firing technique where this confusion might be important;[26] confusion of shell-splashes does not seem to have been a concern of those working on all-big gun designs.[27]”
  • ”firecontrol” should be two words.
  • You continually switch between present and past tense, making this sentence confusing…

Tweaked a little. We are talking about what historians today are saying about discussions in the past, so some mixing of tenses is inevitable, but hopefully this is clearer.

Yep, it is. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 01:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• ”In 1895, a 12-inch gun might fire one round every four minutes; by 1902, two rounds per minute was usual.[29] “
  • Remove the semi-colon and replace it with “, but”.

Why? What's wrong with a decent, honest semicolon? ;)

For a transition. :P —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 01:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

*”Cuniberti's idea - which he had already proposed to his own navy, the Regia Marina - was to make use of the high rate of fire of new 12-inch guns to produce devastating rapid-fire from heavy guns to replace the 'hail of fire' from lighter weapons.[31] “

• • Emdashes should be used, and without spaces.
  • Wasn’t his idea rejected by his own navy, which was the whole reason why he published it? Might be worth mentioning.

Well yes, but that should be obvious from the lack of Italian ships mentioned in this section, and furthermore—contrary to many accounts—Cuniberti is almost entirely uninfluential, so not worth dwelling on.

That's fine then. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 01:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Building the first Dreadnoughts

*”In Japan, the two battleships of the 1903-4 Programme were in fact the first to be laid down as all-big-gun designs, with eight 12-inch guns.”

• • First? Before……Dreadnought, I know, but will the casual reader know that?
• ”The dreadnought breakthrough occurred in Britain in the October of 1905.”
  • ”As a result, the dreadnought”….

Saying "as a result" is a little odd: since the British developments didn't depend on the Japanese at all...

*facepalm*...that was dumb on my part.

*”One of Fisher's first actions on coming to office was to set up a Committee on Designs to consider future battleships and armoured cruisers.”

• • Ref please.

*” The greater efficiency of the turbines meant the 21-knot design speed could be achieved in a smaller and cheaper ship.[38]”

• • How were turbines more efficient? Maybe they got ships faster, but I thought that they used more fuel than reciprocating engines?

Argh. Yes. I think I need to do a bit of work on the turbines section.

Turbines produced more power per kg of machinery, and used less fuel, at high speeds - according to Breyer at least.

Reworded to reflect this. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 01:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• (The whole para) “In Japan, the two battleships of the 1903-4 Programme were in fact the first to be laid down as all-big-gun designs, with eight 12-inch guns. However, the design had armour which was considered too thin, demanding a substantial redesign.[33] The financial pressures of the Russo-Japanese War and the short supply of 12-inch guns—which had to be imported from Britain—meant these ships were completed with a mixed 10- and 12-inch armament. The 1903-4 design also retained traditional triple-expansion steam engines.[34]“
  • Guns => armour => guns => engines …?

Yep. Because no-one has a very clear account of the progression of the 1903-4 design into the Satsumas, it is difficult to be clearer.

...then you won't hear an argument from me. :) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 01:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

*(last sentence) is it necessary to link 21 Marc h 1906?

Design

*Period before Ref [43]

• ” The characteristic of a dreadnought was an 'all-big-gun' armament. Dreadnoughts also carried heavy armour, principally in a thick belt at the waterline, though also in one or more armoured decks which became thicker over time. Protection against torpedoes, secondary armament, fire control, and command equipment also had to be crammed into the hull.”
  • Need a ref for this…
  • I would suggest rewording it like this, if a ref can cover it: “The hallmark of dreadnought battleships was an ‘all-big-gun’ armament, but they also normally had heavy armour concentrated mainly in a thick belt at the waterline and in one or more armoured decks. In addition, protection against torpedoes (typically torpedos), secondary armament, fire control , and command equipment also had to be crammed into the hulls.” (Please check the bulge link; being offline, I can’t be sure if it is right)
• ” Dreadnought size was only eventually limited by the Washington Naval Treaty in 1922, when an upper limit of 35,000 tons was agreed; in subsequent years a number of treaty battleships were commissioned designed to build up to this limit.”
  • ”eventually” is redundant.
  • ”agreed to”
  • comma after “years”
  • reword the last part like this? ”a number of so called “treaty battleships” were built that adhered to this limit, but the departure of Japan from the agreement and the advent of the Second World War quickly destroyed the treaty.”Armament
• (caption) “A plan of Bellerophon showing the armament distribution of a typical early British dreadnoughts; main battery is in twin turrets, with two on the 'wings'; secondary battery is clustered around the superstructure.”
  • Why the plural “dreadnoughts”?
  • ’’the’’ main battery … ‘wings’, while the secondary …”

Position of main armament

• In this section, you use Orions and the like w/o an apostrophe…but in the lead, you used an apostrophe (i.e. Dreadnought's). Please pick one.

I think in the lead "Dreadnought's construction" refers to 'the construction of Dreadnought - correct me if I'm wrong)

• ”The first nation to adopt the triple turret was Italy, with their first Dreadnought, the Dante Alighieri, soon followed by Russia with her Gangut class (also her first dreadnoughts),[50], the Austro-Hungarian Tegetthoff class, the U.S.'s Nevada class, and after World War I by the British G3 and N3 designs of 1921, and the first German triple-turreted capital ship, Scharnhorst. Several later designs used quadruple turrets, including the British King George Vs and French Richelieus.[51] The quadruple turrets, however, often suffered from technical difficulties - most famously HMS Prince of Wales in her engagement with the Bismarck.[52]“
  • Copy-edit please…and what technical difficulties?
  • Should Tegetthoff be italized?

Main armament power and caliber

• ” The Japanese Nagato class in 1917 carried 16-inch guns, matched by the US Navy's Colorado class.”
  • replace the comma with “which was quickly”
• ” Some designs went still further: the British "N3" class would have carried nine 18-inch guns, and the Japanese planned an un-named class, also with 18-inch armament.”
  • link N3 again please.
  • try this: ”…both the British (with their N3 class) and the Japanese were planning to build battleship classes that would mount 18-inch guns.”
• ” However, the Washington Naval Treaty meant these mammoth battleships never got off the drawing board.” ...followed by… “The trend towards larger calibres was arrested by the Naval Treaties.”
  • Isn’t that saying the same thing twice?
  • A link to the Washington Naval Treaty is needed here too…
• ” The German H-43 and H-44 designs proposed 508-mm (20-inch) guns, and there is evidence Hitler wanted calibres as high as 609-mm (24-inch);[59] the Japanese 'Super Yamato' design also used 508-mm guns.[60] “
  • instead of “used”, maybe “called for”?
• ” n this context, the light guns tended to be mounted in unarmoured positions high on the ship to minimise weight and maximise field of fire.[63]”
  • I’m guessing that you need a capital “I” here…

Armour and Central citadels

(Armour)*No images under third-level headings per MOS:IMAGE please…

(Citadel sect.)

• ” This 'citadel' was a box, armoured on all but one side, which contained the most important parts of the ship.”
  • Stupid question, but which side? (The bottom, right?)
• ” The alternative was an 'all or nothing' protection scheme, developed by the U.S. Navy.”
  • Wikilink to [[All of nothing (armor)]].
• ” The alternative was an 'all or nothing' protection scheme, developed by the U.S. Navy. The armour belt was tall and thick, but no side protection at all was provided to the ends of the ship or the upper decks. The armoured deck was also thickened. The 'all-or-nothing' system provided more effective protection against the very-long-range engagements of dreadnought fleets and was adopted outside the U.S. Navy after World War I.”
  • Ref(s)?
• ” During the evolution of the dreadnought, armour schemes changed to reflect the greater risk of plunging shells from long-range gunfire, the increasing threat from both bombs dropped by aircraft and the need to protect battleships more adequately from torpedoes and mines.”
  • Ref(s)?
• ” For instance, Yamato carried a 16.5 in main belt, as opposed to Dreadnoughts 11 in but a deck as thick as 9 in against Dreadnoughts 2 in.”
  • Copy-edit please!

Propulsion and Machinery

(propulsion)*No images under third-level headings please (MOS:IMAGE).

(machinery)*” Turbines offered more power than reciprocating engines for the same volume of machinery[73][74].”

• • Punctuation before refs.
• ” Another often-mentioned advantage of turbines, their cleanliness and superior reliability[75], is largely illusory. By 1905, improved designs of reciprocating engine were available which made the reciprocating engine reliable and easy to work with.[76]”
  • Confusing to me…
• ” Turbines were not without disadvantages. At slower, cruising speeds turbines were markedly less fuel-efficient than reciprocating engines. This was of particular importance for navies which required a long range at cruising speeds - and hence for the U.S. Navy, which even in the early 1900s was planning to cruise across the Pacific to engage the Japanese in the Philippines.[77] This was the reasoning behind the American decision to abandon turbines after installing them in North Dakota[78] (ordered 1907, launched 1908); it was not until Nevada (ordered 1911, launched 1914) that turbines were rehabilitated for U.S. dreadnoughts.”
  • Comma after “cruising speeds”
  • Emdash
  • I’m assuming that you want ref [78] after the ordering and launching dates?
  • Ref for the last sentence? (Look at the Nevada article; I’m sure that I put something in there about turbines when I wrote it.)
• ” This disadvantage of the turbine was eventually overcome. The solution which eventually was generally adopted was the geared turbine, where gearing reduced the rotation rate of the propellors and hence increased efficiency. However, this solution required technical precision in the gears and hence was difficult to implement.”
  • DisadvantageS?
  • Ref(s)?
  • Again, is “propellors” spelled wrong?

Fuel and The Anglo-German arms race

• ” The first generation of dreadnoughts used coal to fire the boilers which fed steam to the turbines. Coal had been in use since the very first steam warships, but had many disadvantages; it was labour-intensive to pack coal into the ship's bunkers and then feed it into the boilers, which became clogged with ash; coal produced thick black smoke which gave away the position of a fleet. In addition, coal was very bulky and had comparatively low thermal efficiency. Coal was, however, quite inert and could be used as part of the ship's protection scheme.[81]”
  • Copy-edit needed.
• ” There were one or two technical problems with oil-firing, connected with the different distribution of the weight of oil fuel compared to coal[81], and the problems of pumping viscous oil.[83].”
  • Punctuation before refs…
• ” Given the USA's plentiful oil and its demand for long-ranged ships, it is no surprise that the U.S. Navy was the first to wholeheartedly adopt oil-firing, deciding to do so in 1901; the Nevada class, ordered 1911.[85]”*
  • C/e please

(arms race section)

• ” The building of the Dreadnought coincided with increasing tension between Britain and Germany.”
  • Stay consistent – either blah blah THE ‘’Dreadnought’’ or blah blah ‘’Dreadnought’’*Wikilink Nassau class again please.
• Instead of “laid down in 1907, followed by the Helgoland class in 1909.”, try “…in 1907. This was followed…”
• Unspace the emdashes!

U.S. dreadnoughts, Dreadnoughts in other countries and The “super-dreadnoughts”

• “The U.S. continued to use reciprocating engines as an alternative to turbines until the Nevada classlaid down in 1912.”
  • Fix the Nevada class link, and you’ve already talked about ordering them in 1911 (or something like that), so keep it consistent.
    • I fixed the link and just removed the year. Allanon ^{♠The Dark Druid♠} 07:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

(other countries sect.)

• ” Turkey ordered two dreadnoughts from British yards, which were seized by the British, while Greece's, ordered from Germany, was taken over by the Germans.”
  • Why were they seized? It was WWI, but explain this.

(super-dreads sect.)

• “The arrival of the super-dreadnought is commonly held to start with the British Orion-class, and for the German navy with Königs. “
  • (a) which one was actually first? (b) if you are going to name GB and G, why not the U.S. too?

…1914 onwards

• ” The outbreak of World War I largely halted the dreadnought arms race. Funds and technical resources were diverted to more pressing priorities.”
  • Combine these sentences.
• Ref [115] needs punctuation before it.
• ” The weaker naval powers engaged in the Great War - France, Austria-Hungary, Italy and Russia - suspended their battleship programmes entirely.”
  • Emdash, unspace.
• ” The final units of the Revenge and Queen Elizabeth classes were completed. The last two battleships of the Revenge class were redesigned as battlecruisers of the Renown class.”
  • Italize Revenge and QE; combine sentences using ‘but’
• ” Fisher followed these ships with the even more extreme Courageous class ; very fast and heavily-armed ships with minimal, 3-inch armour, called 'large light cruisers' to get around a Cabinet ruling against new capital ships”
  • semi-colon spacing?
• ” In Germany, two units of the pre-year Bayern class were gradually completed, but the other two laid down were still unfinished by the end of the War.”
  • ”Pre-year”?
• ” In spite of the lull in battleship building, the years 1917-1922 saw the threat of a renewed naval arms race between Britain, Japan and the USA. The Battle of Jutland exerted a huge influence over the designs produced in this period.”
  • The World War I lull
• Link using ”[[Admiral class battlecruiser|Admiral class]]” or “[[Admiral class battlecruiser|Admiral]] class”? (Which style? Both words or one word?) Be consistent throughout the entire article please…

The latter - think I'm OK on this now....

• Ref [116] punctuation check
• ” This programme was started slowly (in part because of a desire to learn lessons from Jutland), and never fulfilled entirely: however the new American ships, the Colorado class battleship and Lexington class battlecruiser, took a qualitative step above the British Queen Elizabeths and Admirals by mounting 16-inch guns.[117]”
  • A colon?
  • Parenthesis this instead of offsetting it with commas: “the Colorado class battleship and Lexington class battlecruiser”
• ” At the same time the Imperial Japanese Navy was finally gaining authorisation for its 'eight-eight' battlefleet.”
  • Comma after “time”
• ” The Nagato class, authorised in 1916, carried eight 16-inch guns like their American counterparts. The next year's naval bill authorised two more battleships and two more battlecruisers. This time the battleships, the Kaga class carried ten 16-inch guns.”
  • C/e needed.
• ” In response, the Diet of Japan finally agreed to the completion of the 'eight-eight fleet', incorporating a further four battleships class.[120].”
  • ”a further”… what? Also, punctuation by the ref.
  • Should ‘eight-eight fleet be linked earlier?
• ” These ships, the Kii would displace 43,000 tons; …”
  • Wait - shouldn't this be the Kii-class? :)
• ” The British, impoverished by World War I, faced the possibility of becoming the world's third naval power.”
  • Thirld-largest?
• ” A British Admiralty plan of June 1919 outlined a post-war fleet with 33 battleships and eight battlecruisers, which could be built and sustained for £171M a year; in practice only £84M was available.”
  • …but in reality…
• ”The ships which survived the treaty, including the most modern super-dreadnoughts of all three navies, formed the bulk of international capital ship strength through the 1920s and 1930s and, with some modernisation, into World War II.
  • ”the”, not into and “Second World War”, not World War II (Brit Eng).

Generally we are using "World War I", so "World War II" - I do not believe this is a British vs US usage issue.

• ”The ships built under the terms of the Treaty to replace outdated vessels are known as treaty battleships.[124] “
  • ”Were” known (past tense)
• ” Most of the German dreadnought fleet was scuttled at Scapa Flow by its crews in 1919; the remainder were handed over as war prizes.[125] “
  • Is this is the right spot? You were just talking about the 20’s through WWII…

Moved... what do you think...

• ” From this point on, 'dreadnought' became less widely used. Most pre-dreadnought battleships were scrapped or hulked after the World War I,[126] so the term 'dreadnought' became less necessary. Even the battleships of World War II were sometimes referred to as dreadnoughts.”
  • What? You say one thing, then contradict it completely with the next sentence!

Hehe. Yes. Will see what I can do with that sentence.

References

• These are, bluntly, a total MoS mess. You have got to be consistent! At different points, you use “Author, p.(space) ___” ; “Author, p.(nospace)___” ; “Author Title, p. ___” ; Title, Author, ISBN, p. ___” or “Author, Title, Location, Year. p.___”. You have to pick one style. =/

I have tried to standardise on "Author, p. _" but if the same author has more than one entry in the bibliography, "Author, Title, p. __" - hopefully this is in order.

Ooooo duh. I will help with this, but how about we go to the "Author, Title, p. __" for all of them for looks? I'll actually do this later if you want (I stole my mom's old clunker cpu with a crap keyboard to reply to this becuase I have no Wi-fi right now (annoying...); I'll use my laptop later to do this. Allanon ^{♠The Dark Druid♠} 00:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• Ref #39 - The Naval Annual 1905 has a wikilink but no entry in the bibliography below. Was this an oversight?
• Ref #79 needs to be linked to USS Saratoga (CV-3)
• Ref #126 - what makes [1] a reliable source?

It isn't, will take it out.

So my computer died about 20-30 seconds after I finished these. :) Now that I am on, I pasted this in and tried to replace all of the ’ and ‘ type apostrophes with Wikipedia's straight '. I left quotations alone though! I hope that this helps; it took me awhile. :) Also, I don't know when I will be on again, as my internet is being screwy again (I think...I'm not really sure yet -_-), but I will get back to this as soon as I can. Cheers! Allanon ^{♠The Dark Druid♠} 05:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you to going to so much effort! Will be two or three days before I can make all of the changes you suggest, but have interspersed a few comments for the time being. The Land (talk) 19:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem - I was bored on the ride anyway. :) I forgot to mention that I expect all of these comments to be dealt with promptly. ;) No, but seriously now, just strike as you go through them (this isn't FAC, and I don't want to check each one); once most of them have been dealt with, I will just go through everything again (it was a fun read the first time, why not the second time too? :D). Allanon ^{♠The Dark Druid♠} 00:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

That would be very helpful! The Land (talk) 10:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Have made msot of the changes you suggest. This page now looks lilke a total mess! The Land (talk) 14:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

2nd comments from Ed

Alright, review #2, a few days late. Switching to Neutral for now. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 07:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• Origins
  • page # for ref 7.
• wikilink Dreadnought...I know that you don't want to overlink, but you don't want to inconvenience the reader either!
• Building the first Dreadnoughts
  • (copied from above) #REDIRECT *Shouldn’t the section title be “Building the first dreadnoughts”? (de-capitalized?)
  • ...?
• Central citadel
  • ” For instance, Yamato carried a 16.5 in main belt, as opposed to Dreadnoughts 11 in but a deck as thick as 9 in against Dreadnoughts 2 in. The main belt itself was increasingly angled inwards to give a greater effective thickness against low-angle shells.”
    • Ref(s)?

Deleted that statement about low-angle shells.

You still need refs for the sentence though.

• Underwater protection and subdivison
  • ” The final element of the protection scheme of the first dreadnoughts was the subdivision of the ship below the waterline into several watertight compartments. If the hull was holed - by shellfire, mine, torpedo, or collision - then, in theory, only one area would flood and the ship could survive. To make this precaution even more effective, many dreadnoughts had no hatches between different underwater sections, so that even a surprise hole below the waterline need not sink the ship. However, there were still a number of instances where flooding spread between underwater compartments.”
    • Emdash and ref(s) needed.
      • Still need (a) ref(s).
• Propulsion
  • ” Dreadnoughts were propelled by two to four screw propellors. Dreadnought herself, and all British dreadnoughts, had screw shafts driven by steam turbines. However, the first generation of dreadnoughts built in other nations used the slower triple-expansion steam engine which had been standard in pre-dreadnoughts.”
    • Ref(s)? And is “propellors” is spelled wrong? (or is that Brit Eng?)

Propellors is British. Not sure which part of that is controversial?

WP:V...verifiability, not truth is needed. "screw shafts driven by steam turbines"...where did you get that from? Same Q for the second sentence.

• The first three paras of "Battleship building from 1914 onwards" need references.

The outbreak of World War I largely halted the dreadnought arms race as funds and technical resources were diverted to more pressing priorities. The foundries which produced battleship guns were diverted to producing artillery for armies, and shipyards were flooded with orders for small ships. The weaker naval powers engaged in the Great War—France, Austria-Hungary, Italy and Russia—suspended their battleship programmes entirely. Britain and Germany continued building battleships and battlecruisers but at a reduced pace.

In Britain, the British government's moratorium on battleship building and the return of Jackie Fisher to the Admiralty in 1914 meant a renewed focus on the battlecruiser. The final units of the Revenge and Queen Elizabeth classes were completed, though last two battleships of the Revenge class were redesigned as battlecruisers of the Renown class. Fisher followed these ships with the even more extreme Courageous class; very fast and heavily-armed ships with minimal, 3-inch armour, called 'large light cruisers' to get around a Cabinet ruling against new capital ships. Fisher's mania for speed culminated in his suggestion for 'HMS Incomparable', a mammoth, lightly-armoured battlecruiser.

In Germany, two units of the pre-war Bayern class were gradually completed, but the other two laid down were still unfinished by the end of the War. Hindenburg, also laid down before the start of the war, was completed in 1917. The Mackensen class battlecruisers, designed in 1914-15, were begun but never finished.

• This is an ED, DO THIS SOON, i.e within the next 2-3 days...please ping me if I forget :)
• Something about the Delaware-class should be in here; they were described by many as the U.S.’ first dreadnoughts. Whether they or the SC's were is a matter for debate, but both should be included IMHO. I may try adding this myself later (when I have wi-fi again). We’ll see.

I don't think I've ever heard this but feel free.

Well, here is just one link. (A passing mention, but I didn't want to go hunting ;) - first column, a couple sentences in. [2]

Whoo, done. :) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 18:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I've covered all your over points as well. The Land (talk) 18:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose; there are too many breaches in MoS to allow this article to be promoted. I've done quite a bit of work, insofar, in fixing footnotes. They are completely inconsistent; sometimes the author and book are stated before the page number, sometimes the page number comes first (the first way is the correct way, and I changed as many as I could). Page ranges should be separated by en dashes, not normal dashes. Dashes in the text separating complete thoughts should be em dashes. Units should have conversions, using the conversion templates; I will go through that when I have time. There are entire statements that are unsourced. I feel that these are issues that can't be solved within the time it will take the review the article. The article should instead be put through a peer review, where it will get a more exhaustive look on what has to be fixed in order to guarantee promotion. On the other hand, you have obviously put a lot of time into the article, and information wise it looks really good. There is just wikignoming left in order to get it up to standards. But, this will take some time. JonCatalán^(Talk) 21:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Referencing. Do you have any areas where these are lacking to add to The Ed's - I should be able to fix these shortly.

Re conversion. Please do not indiscriminately apply conversion templates in an article like this - if every instance of "12-in" is changed to 12 inches (305 mm) then the article will really become unreadable.

Furthermore, A-class is defined as:An A-Class article should approach the standards for a Featured article (FA), but will typically fall short because of minor style issues. Exactly what those minor style issues are if not the quality of the dashes in the footnotes, I don't know. There are no non-trivial breaches of the MOS.

Regards, The Land (talk) 22:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, these type of MoS breaches aren't minor, especially since they are extensive. The en dashes in the footnotes have been added. In regards to the conversion templates, they are required by MoS. All units have to be converted in the article. On the other hand, for the ACR we can compromise and convert some of the instances. However, the rest of the instances need to follow MoS to their maximum degree (the unit should always be spelled out, except the unit it's converted to in parenthesis). I will convert some, and we'll about the rest. JonCatalán^(Talk) 23:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

There are quite a few conversions (particularly mileage and yardage) which, on reflection, are obviously missing. But do bear in mind that some units, particularly in, are used adjectivally e.g. "12-in gun" is the name of a gun model, not simply "a gun 12 inches (305 mm) in calibre". The Land (talk) 23:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I know; the conversion template can be written to take this into consideration. I've had to learn the conversion template, as I've had to use it in the several articles I've brought up to FA-status. I've gone through some paragraphs converting things. I have to go to work, but when I come back hopefully I will do some more. The article also needs to be copyedited, and hopefully I will be able to help you out with that, as well (unfortunately, I am writing a number of articles simultaneously, so my time is limited). JonCatalán^(Talk) 23:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Having looked at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/A-class_FAQ, you are quite correct. Evidently there has been some instruction creep since the last time I put an article up for A-class review. Thank you for your help, I do appreciate it. The Land (talk) 00:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I've done some copy-editing and added conversion templates - for gun calibres, at least the first instance in a section is converted (whihc I think is the right amount). The Land (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, now the footnotes should be in considerably better shape as well, and I've added a couple of sources which were mentioned in footnotes but not the bibliography. The Land (talk) 18:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Harlsbottom

• Still think genesis of Satsuma is too cut and dried. Certainly Breyer was never in a position to confirm that she was laid down with eight 12-inch guns. I can dig out a reference saying that Japan was relying on her own Kure-built guns by then, and I've already brought up an extremely reliable source that states the Satsuma design was laid down as she was built - similar to a Lord Nelson. According to Ishibashi Takao Illustrated Ships Data of IJN 1868-1945: Vol. 1/Battleships and Battle Cruisers. Tokyo: Namiki Shobô, ISBN 978-4-89063-223-7, p. 168 there is nothing to suggest a modification of the Satsuma design which means mixed armament from the start.

Can I leave rewriting that paragraph in your hands?

• When mentioning triple turrets in "Position of main armament", as well as the N3 and G3 classes the Nelsons may as well be mentioned?

I put the Nelsons in instead, to confine it to only classes which were actually built.

• "Quadruple turrets, however, were frequently unreliable." Taken from Friedman, Battleships: Design...', p. 132. It says that such turrets "often had years of teething trouble" which doesn't neccessarily mean frequently unreliable. Eventually the British 14-inch turret worked quite well-Hodges in The Big Gun, p. 104 states that the R.N. was expecting trouble from the mount anyway so that problems did occur is hardly a revelation. The massive French language book I have on Richelieu doesn't suggest any real trouble with theirs. Friedman also doesn't directly refer to the quadruple mount so much as to mounts designed to treaty-limitations, which would certainly include the troublesome British 16-inch triple turrets which did give problems for many years.

I've just removed the statement. I am sure it will get reintroduced at some stage since "The King George V class had unreliable turrets" is a common naval history factoid, repeated by almost everything every said about the Battle of the Demark Strait. However, as you say, one incident doesn't mean a general statement about naval history... ;-)

In "Dreadnoughts in other countries":

"The seizure of the two Turkish dreadnoughts, Reshadiye and Sultan Osman I(ex-HMS Erin and Agincourt) nearing completion in 1914 in Britain, had far-reaching international repercussions. The Turks were outraged by the British move and the Germans saw an opening. Through skillful diplomacy and by handing over the battlecruiser Goeben and the cruiser Breslau, the Germans maneuvered the Ottoman Empire into joining the Central Powers."

"Ex" doesn't really work with Erin and Agincourt. And this is a somewhat controversial topic as there are many people who believe that Turkey was bent on going to war on Germany's side anyway. I hardly think René Greger is alone qualified to make the call. The class of monitors armed by Bethlehem Steel was the Abercrombie class monitor.

I have rewritten that bit for better style and also to scale down the importance of the ships.

As well as U-Boats a key operational element of the German plan for Jutland were airships for scouting, which never materialised due to weather.

I have mentioned Zeppelins, though I am sure you could do better.

I can and will bring up sources to back up these points, just thought I'd put them out there. --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 09:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! The Land (talk) 21:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• Yet another comment - the "Battleship building from 1914 onwards" section says that "The Nagato class [...] carried eight 16-inch guns like their American counterparts." Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the Colorado-class battleships designed with 16" guns in response to the Nagatos? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 21:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

::Let me refer to my books tomorrow..... The Land (talk) 10:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I've had a look at Friedman and Breyer and the answer seems to be "not really". Both classes were authorised in 1916, though the Colorados took much longer to complete. Friedman doesn't mention the Colorados being a response to the Nagatos that I can see (and one would expect him to); but he does say the US Navy had wanted the 16-inch gun since 1911. So "this happened at the same time" is probably more accurate than "Japan did this and the USA responded". The Land (talk) 17:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Alright then, thanks. :) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 18:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments by TomStar81

• In the last paragraph in the section "Origins" you have the the controversy pointed cited at the beginning and the end of the paragraph, which to me seems redundent. Wouldn't one citation at either the beginning or the end be enough to cover both points?

Yes, that was poor prose. I have rewritten it a bit - as things stood we were probably giving undue weight to Fairbanks' view that fire control was relatively unimportant (a point which Harlsbottom has raised in various places).

• On the issue of shell splashes: have you looked into the use of colored dyes to distuguish splashes? According to my reaserch for the Iowa class, each of the four completed battleships had a dye pack they fired which allowed the battleships to tell which splashes belong to which ship. Its possible a similar system was used for ranging.

I have read half a dozen books and articles which cover shell-spotting in this period and none of them mention coloured dyes. So I suspect it was an innovation between the wars. Harlsbottom has a more detailed knowledge than I do, perhaps he can answer this more authoritatively....

Just noticed this point. I think it may have been a WWII innovation - certainly in the Royal Navy at least. I'm sure there'll be something on navweaps.com about it, will have a browse. EDIT: Already found something on it at [3] "Splash Colors". The U.S.N. first introduced it in 1930. Being able to accurately spot the fall of shot when multiple ships are firing. --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 23:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Another look through my files today - specifically Royal Navy C.B. 3001/1914-1936 Summary of Progress in Naval Gunnery, 1914-1916, pp. 119-120. The Royal Navy identified the need for coloured bursting charges in 1931, but as of 1936 hadn't yet put them into practice (although by WWII they certainly had). --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 21:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• In the last paragraph of the section "Central citadel" you have the sentence "During the evolution of the dreadnought, armour schemes changed to reflect the greater risk of plunging shells from long-range gunfire, and the increasing threat from both bombs dropped by aircraft." The wording "...both bombs dropped by aircraft" strikes me as something of an incomplete thought, I would either loose the "both" or note which two bombs we are referring to.

Lost the both

• In the section "Japan", why is semi-dreadnought bolded?

not any more.

• In the third paragraph of the section "Dreadnoughts in other countries" you have the sentence "However, a constitutional crisis in 1909 10 meant no construction could be approved." Me thinks that there should be a dash between 1909 and 1910: "However, a constitutional crisis in 1909-10 meant no construction could be approved."

hehe, I used   rather than – .... - whoops!

• In the second to last paragraph of the section "The super dreadnoughts" you have the sentence "Their pdesign emphasized the vertical protection needed in short-range battles." The word pdesin is obviously a spelling error, but I am not sure if you meant previous design or simply design.

Typo fixed.

Otherwise it looks good. Well Done! TomStar81 (Talk) 09:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Addressed, I believe. Many thanks. The Land (talk) 10:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support Looks good. My compliants have been addressed. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - I'm not going to go hunting to strike my neutral above...but I'm supporting this. There may still be some MoS errors, but not enough/not noticeable enough for A-class—IMO, A-class is for content and FAC is for style. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 22:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.