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. 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 Nu  tter  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 Nu  tter  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.

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

"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.
 * 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 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)

The Land (talk) 10:13, 17 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)
 * 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  "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&mdash;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.