Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/HMS Dreadnought (1906)

HMS Dreadnought (1906)
Looking for general suggestions for improvement, specifically for A-class, as I plan to make this my first real improvement project. Carom 16:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Buckshot06
I'd review the Featured Article criteria to get an idea of what's most required, but for a start, there's masses of good information that needs in-line citations added. Good luck..! Buckshot06 02:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin
The main point to work on, at this juncture, would be the lack of inline citations; they should be liberally applied throughout the article. Aside from that: Kirill Lokshin 01:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Some images of the actual ship would be very nice.
 * The lead should be lengthened.
 * There are a number of very short sub-sections in the "Genesis" section that could stand to be lengthened, if there's more material available.

Harlsbottom
I echo all that Kirill Lokshin has said, however I have two major complaints;

Quite apart from being uncited, the Technology section is not very good, while the entire latter third is useless. Someone with a sadly deficient knowledge of fire control has confused the essentials. If I had the time I would rectify it, but all I can do is point people in the direction of Dreadnought Gunnery at the Battle of Jutland by John Brooks.

I think that for this to be FA all the American (W.S. Sims' ideas) content would have to be cast out - on a subject of (arguably) such magnitude an article on the development of the dreadnought would be a good plan, instead of trying to squeeze everything hodge-podge into this one.

My very short views on the subject. --Harlsbottom 22:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

John Moore 309
There is much that is good here, but also much that strikes me as subjective in tone, with overuse of terms such as “useless”, “ironically” and “obsolete”. In particular, why is the section on the ship’s war service entitled Decline? The  Genesis and  Technology sections are verbose and repetitive, as well as being unsourced, while the section on  Significance is a stub.

The article also includes an alarming number of factual inaccuracies and unfounded judgements. The following list is not exhaustive.


 * ’’Another major innovation was the elimination of longitudinal passageways.’’ This was not an innovation in Dreadnought, having already been introduced in the Lord Nelson class.


 * ”A collision during fleet exercises had earlier resulted in the sinking of a battle cruiser”. This unreferenced statement presumably alludes to the loss of HMS Victoria in 1893. Definitely not a battlecruiser.


 * ”Then-new American and German dreadnoughts, … mounted all of their guns on centerline”. The German contemporaries of  Neptune were the Helgoland class, which used wing turrets, as did the subsequent Kaiser class


 * ”Withdrawn from the fleet because her low speed made it impossible to keep station”. Dreadnought was good for 21 knots, the standard speed of the Grand Fleet’s battleships.


 * ”Smaller 12 pounder (76 mm) guns were added”. They were fitted from the start.


 * ”by 1910 she was obsolete”. Hyperbole. She was considered obsolescent, which is not the same thing, from about 1915.

Obviously this is a key article for the Wikiproject. I haven’t spent a lot of time for Wikipedia lately, but I will try to look at some of these issues in the New Year.

Regards,

John Moore 309 18:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Mark83
WP:Lead says the introduction "should briefly summarise the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article." that is not the case here. For example its obsolescence and eventual decomissioning should be summarised. Mark83 20:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)