Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/List of pre-dreadnought battleships of the Royal Navy

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is closed. 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 Gog the Mild (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 22:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

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

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

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

Toolbox

Because the Brits were so keen on battleships, we've split the British list into post- and pre-Dreadnought lists for size concerns. This list comprises the pre-dreadnought type battleships built for the Royal Navy, beginning with the Royal Sovereigns of 1889, commonly called the originators of the pre-dreadnought as a standardized type. And because I'm a Yank, I'd appreciate an extra eye to help me stamp out any bits of American English that might be present. Thanks to all who take the time to review it. Parsecboy (talk) 14:56, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support[edit]

  • I found some US spellings and corrected them. [1] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:55, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks Hawkeye - I knew there'd be things I overlooked. Parsecboy (talk) 12:38, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Noswall59[edit]

  • I've just copyedited the lead here, mostly to reduce redundancies or improve the flow. Feel free to revert if you don't like any of the changes.
  • In the lead: "typically 12 inches (305 mm) guns" - as "12 inches" is an adjective, this this should be "typically 12-inch (305-mm) guns" but I see that this is generated by a template so I'm not sure how to correct this (Because it is an adjective, I'm pretty sure inches should be in the singular too).
    • Good catch - there's a "adj=on" parameter that fixes the template. Parsecboy (talk) 13:35, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, brilliant – that'll do it. Having read over the rest of the article, I've noticed that the measurements of the various guns are not formatted consistently; some use templates, some don't; some use just inches, others show inches and mm; some use "in", others use "inches"; some have the measurements as adjectives, others don't. This is the case throughout, but see the Lord Nelson section for instance.
        • We should be standardized on abbreviated units now, but as for the conversions, I only convert on the first use. Parsecboy (talk) 13:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's all for now – the rest of the lead seemed fine. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 13:07, 3 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  • Okay, I've copy-edited down to the end of the article (see here). As before, please revert anything you aren't happy with.
  • The only quibble other than the gun issue is that under the London-class section, in the second paragraph, the article says that "In 1912 and 1913, London was used in experiments with aircraft." This feels a bit vague to me and I wanted to know what this entailed, especially as you did a good job briefly expanding later on the aircraft experiments carried out on the King Edward VIIs.
    • Added a bit
  • I can't comment on the technical details and will leave source/ref formatting/image/content reviews up to others. But I'll be happy to support on prose once you've corrected the gun issue I've mentioned above and perhaps expanded a little on the London-class aircraft experiment. Nice work – it's great to see OMT1 nearing completion. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 15:35, 3 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • File:HMS Renown diagrams Brasseys 1897.jpg needs a PD-US tag.
    • Added.
  • All other images and diagrams appropriately licensed.
  • All diagrams properly sourced.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Harrias[edit]

  • "..similar London class ships." This should have a hyphen. In fact, arguably, the sentence should be "..three Formidable- and five very similar London-class ships."
    • Fixed
  • "..with many serving.." Avoid Noun plus -ing.
    • Reworded
  • "They introduced what would become the.." Pet peeve, and therefore optional, but to me, this would be tighter as "They introduced what became the.."
    • Works for me
  • Is there a wikilink to explain "twin mounts"?
    • No, but reworded to hopefully improve clarity
  • "..all of the members of the class.." To avoid repetition of "of the", I think you could remove it completely in the first instance: "..all members of the class.."
    • Good idea
  • "..of the Controller of the Navy, Rear Admiral John A. "Jacky" Fisher and the.." Needs a comma after "Fisher".
    • Fixed
  • "She was used in a variety of subsidiary roles through 1911.." Using "through" like this is a bit of an Americanism, could it be rephrased?
    • Done
  • "..as the new 12 in gun.." in prose, this made me pause, as I read it as "in", rather than "inch". Consider expanding this abbreviation in the prose if no conversion is provided, just for ease and flow of reading.
    • Done
  • "..with Magnificent becoming.." Noun plus -ing again.
    • Reworded
  • "..in 1903 and 1904, respectively.." I don't think that comma is necessary.
    • Removed
  • I would prefer "mobilised" for BrEng, though technically either is acceptable.
    • Done
  • "..with Ocean and Goliath being sunk.." Noun plus -ing again.
    • Fixed
  • The displacement for the Formidable class states "15,805 to 15,930 long tons (16,059 to 16,186 t)", but all three individual ship articles list the full load displacement as 15,800. Why the discrepancy?
    • Ah, that's a discrepancy between Burt and Conway's - I'll go with Conway's since that's what the other tables are using to keep it an apples to apples comparison
  • "..in Flanders through November 1915.." As above regarding use of "through".
    • Reworded
  • "..about 1,000 long tons (1,000 t).." In this case, the rounding is confusing; I would suggest making it more precise: (1,016 t).
    • Good catch
  • "..initially less White himself.." Using "less" as a synonym of "without" isn't common in BrEng, suggest just switching to "without".
    • Done
  • "They were to be the last battleships designed.." This works just as well without "to be".
    • Done
  • The abbreviation "DNC" hasn't been defined.
    • Good catch
  • "..on the ships, Hibernia being the first.." Noun plus -ing again.
    • Fixed
  • " January 1916, King Edward VII struck a mine and sank and later that year the 3rd Squadron was detached from the fleet and dispersed." This sentence gets a bit bogged down with three "and"s. Maybe split it after "sank"?
    • Done
  • The abbreviation "BEF" hasn't been defined.
    • Expanded
  • Much as sortable lists tend to link everything, I would prefer that all measurements in the tables are given conversions: it is very plausible that a reader might skip down to one particular class without reading all those above, so omitting the conversion potentially limits their understanding.
    • That's a fair point.

Quite a bit, but it's all really minor stuff. Really good work on this, and all the other battleship-related articles and lists. Harrias talk 14:20, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Harrias! Parsecboy (talk) 15:16, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great work, I have no further concerns. Harrias talk 17:58, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from AustralianRupert[edit]

G'day, Nate, nice work. I only have a few minor comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 04:02, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • in the References, Burt should be after Brown
    • Good catch
  • the following terms appear to be overlinked: Admiralty, British Expeditionary Force (World War I)
    • Fixed
  • sources: all appear reliable to me based on either authors and/or publishers (no action required)
  • citations appear to be of a consistent format and all information appears to be referenced (no action required)
  • "mobilised" and "mobilized"
    • Fixed
  • "pair of Argentinian" --> "pair of Argentinean"?
    • Per this, it seems Argentinean is an Americanism and "ian" is the British variant
  • is this missing something: from British shipyards in response to a pair of armoured cruisers? Had the pair of armoured cruisers done something?
    • Existing, I think was the problem ;) But I've clarified that they were ordered from Italy
  • suggest adding alt text to the images: [2]
    • Added alt text, though I don't know how useful it is. Parsecboy (talk) 19:40, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by CPA-5[edit]

  • The British Royal Navy built a series of pre-dreadnought battleships Remove "British" here because this article is about the British Royal Navy and there is no reason to use it here.
    • I don't agree - yes, people landing on the page may well be familiar with the topic, but there are also those who will not be.
  • But this list is already about the British Royal Navy. It's also really odd to see why its title is Royal Navy instead of the other lists where they don't include the country's navy look for instead of List of battlecruisers of Japan it doesn't say "List of battlecruisers of the Imperial Japanese Navy" Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:17, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • of numerical superiority over the French and Russian fleets Pipe Russians here to the Russian Empire.
    • Done
  • Link China to Qing China.
    • It is, in the Centurion section
  • See some "-ise" and "-ize"s we should standardise them.
    • Fixed
  • responsible for most of the pre-dreadnoughts built in Britain I know this we use Britain in the 20th century a lot to prefer the UK. But are we talking about the UK or the island? Because at the time Ireland was part too and it might sound a little bit wrong to use it while whole Ireland was under British.
    • A fair point, but I don't believe any of these ships were built in Irish yards ;)
  • Link Mediterranean.
    • Done
  • facilities were limited in East Asia and the Pacific Unlink East Asia because it's too common.
    • Done
  • She moved to Chinese waters in 1898, and both ships were involved Link here Chinese to Qing China and unlink it the sentence after.
    • Done
  • Intended for the 1892 programme No link for the 1892 programme?
    • Nope
  • battleships as part of the so-called Spencer Programme Same as above for the Spencer one?
    • Nope
  • There, Majestic was sunk by the German U-boat U-21 in May 1915 This is the first time we use German here so is it posible to link it to the German Empire but without creating a sea of blue sentence?
    • Not really, I don't think - I'll link it at the next use
  • entering service and Magnificent became the fleet flagship. Caesar, Illustrious, and Victorious Link all those ships and Majestic herself too.
    • Done
  • 10 inch is equal to 250 mm vs 254 mm?
    • Good catch
  • The Canopus class was the first British battleship design to use water-tube boilers --> "The Canopus class were the first British battleship designs to use water-tube boilers"?
    • I don't think that's right, since there was only one design and that's what the "Canopus class" is referring to here, not the ships themselves
  • The 5th Squadron was stationed in the Channel at the start of the war Link Channel here.
    • Done
  • The London class was, in most respects was --> were?
    • Done
  • Long tons and tonnes are overlinked.
    • Removed
  • Link Montagu.
    • Done
  • sent to the Mediterranean during the Balkan War in 1912 Maybe re-link the Balkan war in 1912 to the First Balkan War?
    • Done
  • British Expeditionary Force is overlinked.
    • Fixed
  • I also don't think we always should repeat the convert units in the tables.
    • I'm going to let you fight with Harrias about that then :P
  • Is it possible to standardise the 10/13-digit ISBNs?
    • Sure can

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:21, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks CPA. Parsecboy (talk) 18:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/List_of_pre-dreadnought_battleships_of_the_Royal_Navy&oldid=942638699"