Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Majestic-class battleship


 * 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 TomStar81 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 06:06, 21 December 2015 (UTC) &laquo; Return to A-Class review list

Majestic-class battleship

 * Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

Something of a departure for me, in that these ships came from the other side of the North Sea. The Majestic design was a major development in capital ship technology in the late 19th century, and the inspired many copies throughout the world. They were the oldest battleships in RN service during WWI, though they were mostly withdrawn from front-line duty by 1916. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 15:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Question: Is this one comprehensive enough for FAC? - Dank (push to talk) 21:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd say so - it's comparable to Sturm's current ACR on the Peresvet class and FAs like Fuji-class battleship (and is only marginally shorter than Andrea Doria-class battleship, which has a fairly lengthy section on those ships' reconstruction). Parsecboy (talk) 13:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. I don't know what "with ... good steamers" means. - Dank (push to talk) 23:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments  Support Comments: AustralianRupert (talk) 04:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC) Comments: Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The fire-tube boilers that you reference are actually cylindrical boilers, aka Scotch marine boilers.
 * Thanks for the tip
 * Link roll.
 * Already linked
 * Is a figure available for the amount of coal stowed after they've converted to mixed firing?
 * Nothing in either Conway's or Burt, unless I missed it
 * 9 inches (229 mm) of Harvey armour on the armoured belt This reads a bit oddly to me. Nicely done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:59, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Good point - switched it to "Harvey steel". Thanks Sturm. Parsecboy (talk) 13:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was objecting to "on" as the belt is made from Harvey armour.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I adjusted it per this edit: Does that work? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:38, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "In 1891 Rear Admiral Jackie Fisher, then the Controller..." --> maybe clarify of which Navy?
 * Good idea
 * "and a draft of 27 ft (8.2 m)" --> "and a draught of 27 ft (8.2 m)"
 * Fixed - this is why I don't write many articles in BrEng ;)
 * "File:HMS Majestic sinking 27 May 1915.jpg": I wonder if there is an online source that can be linked to on the image description page of this image. If not, I don't believe it is a problem, but would be an improvement to add one. I'm not sure about the life of author + 70 licence, though, as the author isn't identified
 * There are several versions of the photo online, but they're all different crops of the images (I've added one that has the same source) - there don't appear to be any exact matches. If I had to guess, the magazine was scanned into google books (I haven't looked) and the uploader copied it from that. Parsecboy (talk) 13:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Update: Other than the comment above (which has been dealt with), the images appear to be appropriately licenced to me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:26, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Tool checks: There are no dab links, the ext links all work, and there are no duplicate links reported.
 * Referencing: the article appears to be well referenced, using a consistent citation style;
 * Prose: I couldn't find anything major and I am happy that Dan has added his support in this regard;
 * Alt text: I suggest adding alt text to the images, although it is not a requirement. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:26, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * They introduced a number - suggest "The Majestic's introduced..."
 * Sounds fine to me.
 * The Majestic class, the largest class of - this statement seems like it would be best be a separate paragraph, and perhaps located elsewhere.
 * I think it fits there - would the paragraph seem more cohesive if the first sentence read something like "...all successor pre-dreadnoughts, in the British and foreign navies"?
 * although very different from the old-style, heavy, circular gun turrets that preceded them, - not being up on older ship design, I'm not entirely sure what this means. Perhaps expand a bit?
 * In the "Right elevation" image, is the dark line on the lower section illustrating the armor? Maybe mention in the caption, maybe not.
 * Good idea
 * Majestic and her sisters were armed - I think this could use some minor re-arrangement, it kind of jumps around a bit. I suggest moving the "They were the first new" up, and then separating the remainder into two paras, one about the guns and another about the mounting/turrets. I assume from the description that the magazines did not rotate like later designs? Is so, perhaps that's worth a mention too, as it explains the bit about the reloading from the mags.
 * See how it reads now
 * arm eight Lord Clive-class monitor - missing the trailing S I think.
 * It's there, unless I'm looking at the wrong one. Parsecboy (talk) 11:07, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I added this after Maury's review. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:19, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * are you in a position to respond to Maury's comments? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:26, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping, AR - I've been meaning to get to this for at least a week now. Parsecboy (talk) 11:07, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - looks fine to me, one very minor point:
 * You wrote: "it was the Majestics that settled on the 12 inch (305 mm)...", however, you have previously given this conversion in the text above it so did you mean to do so again? Anotherclown (talk) 10:16, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No, probably just not paying attention ;) Parsecboy (talk) 11:07, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * 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.