Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Royal Navy/archive 1

Royal Navy
I have just started editing this article and have shrunk the history section. I understand that this article does need some referencing in places but are there any other problems with it. I intend to help this article upto A-Class and beyond if possible. Thankyou for any comments. Woodym555 14:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Killigan
Some things I think you could add and edit are


 * Add a picture of a British navy ship at the top of the article.
 * Remove the list of famous sailors, ships, etc to a new article and shrink the list on Royal Navy.
 * The "Customs and Traditions" section can also be summarized a bit more.
 * Add an explanation of the "Composition of the Fleet since 1960" section.
 * Reorganize the "Command, Control and Organisation" section so readers can see the order of rank. You could also add images of insignia.
 * The title "Command, Control and Organisation" can be just "Organization", I think that is sufficient.

Hope my comments help! They are only suggestions so don't take them too seriously. If you have any problems, just ask. Mr. Killigan 06:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Hongooi
I would agree on taking out the lists of sailors and ships, and also the timeline. Good job on shrinking the History section, but I think it needs some way to go. Also, I'd put back the subsections; at the moment it's one big block of text which looks a bit overwhelming. Conversely, some (much?) of the info in Future of the Royal Navy could fit in here. -- Hongooi 08:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have added the subsections back in as i did think it was a large block of text. I had been trying to think of NPOV headings and i settled on dates. With regards to the future Royal Navy, should that go in "History" or in "the fleet today". There is also a fine line between useful data and WP:CRYSTAL. The CVF is still planned and by no means confirmed as are the order details for much of the planned fleet. With regards to the timeline should it be deleted or just turned into a new page? Thanks for your comments. Woodym555 11:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, just having a look at the future of the Royal Navy, there doesn't seem to be that much that actually talks about the future -- much of it is about the force structure as it is in the early/mid 2000s. There's the CVF and the JSF, and that's about it as far as crystal-ball stuff goes. Even the new destroyers and frigates are already in the process of entering service. Checking the talk page, I see that the issue of merging it with Royal Navy did actually come up before. As for the timeline, maybe that can go into the history page. -- Hongooi 11:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have moved the timeline over to the history page. The future issue has now resolved itself in effect because the Treasury has given(or is meant to give this week) funding permission. The remaining Type 45s have not been ordered yet, there are no plans for future frigates, they were cancelled. The only new stuff really is the Bay Class and the Albion Class. I will add the "future" stuff from that page into the Royal Navy today section, it can be expanded and referenced soon, although with the CVF and Type 45s i am tempted to wait until the final announcement is made. Thanks Woodym555 15:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

How does the latest version look? Apart from the referencing which i am continually adding and improving, does anyone have any further suggestions? Thanks Woodym555 14:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Buckshot06
I'd say chop out all the see-alsos that aren't noted in the text, and link some of the available forces the RN contributes to - SNMG 2, for example. What are you going to do about the Future of the Royal Navy semi-fork page? Cheers Buckshot06 11:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I have cut down the see alsos, i will try and integrate a few more within the text soon. I will try and wikilink the Nato forces when i find the articles! The future of the Royal Navy is more problematic. It is essentially an essay discussing the possible future of the Royal Navy from a 1990 standpoint. It needs rewriting if it is to reflect current thinking and current developments. Astute and the Type 45s are mentioned almost in passing. I don't see why much of the information cannot be moved here or into the History of the Royal Navy. It seems to be a breach of WP:RECENT in that it gives a whole article to the last 15 years when the main article covers 800 years. I have tried to move some information over but am trying not to put a recent bias on it. A delicate balance.
 * What are your opinions on how to integrate the graphs into the text? Whilst i don't think they are unsightly, i do think they need to be integrated somehow or moved to a new Royal Navy post World War II article which could also consume the Future article.
 * Thanks for your comments. Woodym555 18:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Vanished user
I'm not sure you haven't cut the history a bit too much; I mean, it practically defined Britain from, say the defeat of the Spanish Armada to the Victorian period, but we're instead getting most of the time on the World wars. The graphs are kind of ugly, I'd run them over to WP:GL/IMPROVE. I'd like some more historical ships, if possible, we don't actually see a ship until the section on the World Wars. Perhaps the Navy in Popular culture? (H.M.S. Pinafore, Corcoran's song about the change to steam in Utopia, Limited's act I finale, etc, etc. Also, the later parts are a bit heavy on statistics, not always very well presented. WP:GL/IMPROVE may be able to help there as well.

I don't know. I am a Victorianphile, so that might skew my views about the history section a bit. Vanished user talk 17:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I will be the first to agree that the history section needs some refinement. As i have stated on the Royal Navy talk page in that mammoth discussion on the Battle of Cartagena, the world wars sections need cutting back and the 18th/19th century might need some more expanding. I think we do have to keep WP:SUMMARY in mind though. The place for detailed discussion on the History of the Royal Navy is on that page and that page primarily. The Royal Navy page is meant to be a summary and we have to be careful not to expand it too much.


 * With regards to popular culture there is an in fiction section which already exists and this could probably go in there or the section could be renamed. We do already have the page List of famous ships and sailors of the Royal Navy. This is already quite subjective, what makes a ship famous beyond the obvious Victory and the Mary Rose?


 * I will admit that the graphs need improving and better integration within the article. Any suggestions on how would be most welcome. Woodym555 18:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

ALR
I think this article needs some focus for a start. The RN is a huge topic, and at the moment this doesn't really have a clear idea of whether it's about the RN as it is today, or the RN as a historical thing which just happens to still exist. To me, it should discuss the RN as it is today, and drop out issues to subordinate articles as required.

IMO the history section still needs shrunk even further, an entire article exists which is heavily replicated here. Frankly anyone wanting to read about the service is unlikely to make it to the bottom of the history section.

The section on the future force structure is pretty speculative, unfortunately any doctrinal material about future force structure and the Versatile Maritime Force is classified, even if only RESTRICTED, so unable to be used as a source.

I think the graphs are inherently meaningless without interpretation, and any interpretation is both OR and of limited value without the VMF material.

The C2 section is incomplete, and needs to reflect the RN in the Joint Environment and within MOD, I can do that when I find some time. Unfortunately again most of that material is not easily sourcable as the primary sources are classified.

Pushed for time, so that's the lot right now

ALR 21:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thankyou for your comments about the graphs. I have stated before, here, and on various talk pages that the graphs need to be interpretated, expanded or removed. I think they have little meaning without any expansion. and they are inherently unneccessary; I think the table shows the data perfectly adequately. The idea of the History section as it stands is to be a summary of the History of the Royal Navy article.
 * I think this article does drop out issues to subordinate article. That is the idea of the section headers such as notable sailors, customs and traditions, history of the Royal Navy etc. I have tried to conform to WP:SUMMARY in that respect. As mentioned above, and elsewhere, various articles need to be merged or moved. The future of the Royal Navy is limited in its scope. I do think that the Postwar period- Composition of the fleet should be merged, the graphs deleted and the table kep. The royal Navy today would then flow seamlessly with the rest of the article. As it stands, it's disjointed.
 * With regards to the Focus, i think it is focused towards the current Royal Navy. Everything below history is about the Royal Navy today. Admittedly the information that is there needs reorganising but it is there. I think the Royal Navy today should provide an overview of capability through the integration of ship descriptions such as, Amphibious/Escorts/Submarine/other. This would add some new information but again we have to follow WP:SUMMARY and not duplicate future of the Royal Navy. I think the future article needs a complete refocus or at least a rename.
 * What we have to avoid is this page turning into a duplicate of the Royal Navy page or turning into a mixture of a myriad of different official documents. I think some of the terminology is straight out of an official document and as such is inaccessible to the layman. I think excessive use of acronyms, although mirroring the Royal Navy, will complicate the prose and make it hard to read. I think the C2 section does need clearing up, but it is hard to do that if it is not clear in the first place. I don't think it is clear to the Royal Navy, to be perfectly honest. What i have suggested to you in the past, is a diagram showing the command structure, i am still awaiting your response on that proposal.
 * Sorry if this has turned into an essay but i think this is an important article that needs some discussion and action. I will try and work on it tomorrow, by combining the sections as discussed above. Woodym555 22:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * My concern about the table is similar to my concern about the graphs. Without a fairly lengthy exploration of the context, both technological and geo-political, they don't add anything useful.  Sheer numbers don't mean anything useful, for example a 1950's destroyer could exercise direct fire sea control over an area about thirty miles diameter, although control waterspace over somewhat more than that, roughly a couple of hundred miles, a modern Frigate can exercise direct fire sea control over an area of about 180 miles, controlling waterspace of about 800 miles diameter, more if in company with other assets.  your problem with all of that is finding a reliable reference to discuss it from.  That source is what is lacking.
 * I think we just need to agree to disagree over the current history section. At over two screen lengths it's about the maximum that the average screen user will actually read before moving on somewhere else.  It's neither a summary, nor comprehensive, as altready highlighted regarding the WWII emphasis.  Personally I don't think it should be more than about three paragraphs.
 * I acknowledge your concern about this turning into a replica of the RN website, and would agree with the sentiment although disagree that it's likely. The RN site isn't comprehensive, and tbh it's wrong in a number of areas.  It's an outsourced effort and there is quite a lot of dissatisfaction around it.
 * I'm not sure what you're aiming at with the comment about excessive use of acronyms, there are very few there at present, howver maritime warfare does have a specialist language, and we need to assume a level of intelligence from readers.
 * With respect to C2, my previous point stands. No sources are easily available to you, hence the majority of the readership, with respect to the current organisation.  As I previously highlighted to you, FLEET is undergoing yet another re-organisation so there is unlikely to be anything published in the near future.  Any diagram is OR, and I'm surprised that wasn't clear from what was said before.  Similarly with respect to the relationship with MOD, DPA and DLO merged this year, leading to the Controller and NML being part of the same organisation, both LAND and STRIKE are undergoing similar change programmes to the one that FLEET undertook last year.  Things are very much in flux.
 * ALR 09:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Operational Headquarters at Northwood, Middlesex, co-located with the Permanent Joint Headquarters and a NATO Regional Command, Allied Maritime Component Command Northwood. CINCFLEET is also Commander AMCCN. I think this highlights the problems of acronyms and official language. To the layman, or even the uninformaed this would seem complicated. To be honest the whole section is, and should probably be rewritten by somone knowledgeable, or should be removed.
 * I don't think you can summarise British Naval History in three paragraphs, created, fought, lost, stopped Armada, beat Spanish at Trafalgar, lost a few battles in the World Wars, won a few battles in World Wars, Fought the Argentinians over Falklands, been in decline ever since. Good summary? Even then it starts to get long. I admit the World Wars need cutting down. Other than that, i agree about agreeing to disagree.
 * In terms of the graphs i will start a debate on the talk page, and will probably remove them. I do think the numbers serve a basic purpose though, they do show the decline in numbers of the fleet. I know capability needs to be taken into account but on a basic level you can't be in two places at once. With one ship replacing two it leaves a gap and that is what that table is showing. There are numerous article that talk about declining numbers and capabilities and i will reference them when i rewrite the section. Woodym555 18:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, to be accurate needs a reasonable degree of formality around language, particularly when you decontextualise the paragraph. In the article CINCFLEET has already been explained, NATO shouldn't need explaining and I really do think it somewhat OTT to repeat Allied Maritime Component Commander Northwood twice in two sentences.  It seems complicated because, frankly, it is.  I'm not denying the language could be improved, but I'm very concerned about dumbing it down too much.
 * fwiw, I wrote the section on C2, and I am knowledgable on the subject.
 * ALR 19:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt your knowledge on the subject, you do seem to be well-informed. The sentence was meant as a general example of the problems with the whole section. Given that the Royal Navy was included in the Wikipedia CD for schools i think we have to keep in mind that the language needs to be accessible. I am not saying write it on the level of a 10 year old simply to keep in mind that most people do not have a clue about naval terminology and may find the whole thing confusing. I know that many officers find it confusing as well, but we do have to try and keep it accessible. I think a simple paragraph explaining that ''the C2 now has a new facility at HMS Excellent and a new command structure that liks in with the DPA, DLO and MOD. It is a complicated structure, revised constantly, but currently there are ... in positions. Go onto explain or list positions. I don't think all of the links between departments of The Civil service and MoD need to be there. We need to state that the exist but any detailed explanation will confuse the whole matter. The reader needs to be able to read the paragraph once and be able to understand it. At the moment even i (and i do have some experience in the whole thing) have to reread it to fully understand its meaning. Woodym555 19:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)