Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Dutch 1913 battleship proposal


 * 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.

Dutch 1913 battleship proposal

 * Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 16:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Nominator(s): — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  and Nick-D (talk)

The interesting story of the Dutch's plan for nine, later four, dreadnoughts to defend the Netherlands East Indies. Enjoy! — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  08:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Support: just a quick review at this stage, I'm afraid. There are no dab links, the external links work and the images have alt text. I'm not really able to discuss content as it is not my area of knowledge, although it seems complete to me (although I notice that there was some concerns raised on the talk page). Some other points, but not anything major:
 * should endashes be used in the citations between 1914-1918 in the reference name?
 * there appears to be an inconsistency in capitalisation of the word white (as in European people). In one instance it is capitalised, where in another it is not.
 * should the citations use p. or pp. in front of the page numbers?

That is it so far, unfortunately as I'm pressed for time. Hopefully someone with more knowledge on the topic might stop by. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 09:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure re endashes. Nick, what do you think?
 * The book uses a small dash rather than an endash, so no. Nick-D (talk) 10:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed
 * No, I started the article using a version of the Chicago Manual of Style suggested by one of my professors, and Nick continued it. :) Regards, — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  18:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm currently in the process of expanding this article to include more details on the design which I've found in a new source. As such, it may be best to delay any further votes until these changes are made and the article expanded. I hope to have this finished tomorrow (Australian time!). Nick-D (talk) 10:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've just expanded the details on the various designs which were proposed. Nick-D (talk) 00:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. I just hope van Dijk and Sturton are reliable, because the article seems to be, perhaps overly, dependant on these sources. However, I recognize the difficulty of finding sources on it. – Joe   N  01:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The different sources are in accordance on almost all details, which is a good sign. All the sources are very reliable - Kees van Dijk is a university professor specialising in Dutch rule in Indonesia, Anthonie van Dijk's articles were published in a reputable journal and Conways is a standard reference work. Nick-D (talk) 02:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Support, but a few niggling points:
 * As far as I know, Koninklijke Marine translates simply as "Royal Navy", not "Royal Netherlands Navy" (which would be something like "Koninklijke Nederlands Marine"). Same goes for Koninklijke Landmacht.
 * Yep, you're right. My bad. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  06:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Why "tonnes" but "armor"? It's "metric tons" in US English.
 * The proposed ships' armor protection was lighter than that of the Kaiser class, and was similar to the level of protection in contemporary German battlecruisers. - of course I've got to pick on this one: the article could use some specific figures (perhaps in a footnote). The Kaisers had 350mm thick belts and the Derfflingers had 300mm thick belts. You can source that to Erich Gröner's German Warships: 1815–1945, pages 26 and 56, respectively.
 * a powerful fleet of gun-armed ships - What's with the "gun-armed ships?" The bird farms hadn't been invented yet, and why not just say "capital ships" to distinguish them from other "gun-armed ships" like cruisers, destroyers, and gun boats? Same with "gun-armed fleet" later in that section. If you're trying to emphasize Mahanian doctrine over the Jeune Ecole, then that needs to be spelled out, because the average reader doesn't know who Johnny Ecole is.
 * Why not scan in the line drawing from Conway's? That surely falls under fair use, as much as this does.
 * Because I never remembered to scan it in. :P I'll try to do so soon. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  06:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice work, both of you. Parsecboy (talk) 00:39, 16 December 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.