Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dreadnought

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:27, 21 February 2009 [1].

Dreadnought

[edit]
Nominator(s): The Land (talk)

This article was forked from Battleship, an FA of some vintage, about 18 months ago. It has taken quite a long time to bring up to FA standard, because it's quite a large subject, and there is a minor controversy about the origins of the dreadnought concept. With the help of several other users, particularly User:Harlsbottom and User:Toddy1, and a much larger bookshelf than I started off with, I think we have created a very strong article on the matter. The article has recently passed an A-class review which was very helpful and reacquainted me with a number of realities after having been away from the FA process for some time. Regards, The Land (talk) 12:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on criterion 3 - see Talk:Dreadnought#Image review. Awadewit (talk) 02:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing progress, more comments pn the talk page. The Land (talk) 08:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Progress is being made, responded on talk page. Awadewit (talk) 20:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just one left. Awadewit (talk) 19:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: There are still problems with this last image. Awadewit (talk) 11:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed that image. The Land (talk) 18:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Striking oppose. Awadewit (talk) 02:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few comments:
  • If you have a separate Notes section, then why are there Notes in the References section? [See for example "Additional advantage is gained..." and "Fisher first firmly proposed".]
  • Should the notes in the separate Notes section be provided with a source?
  • What's this redlinked template? WP Ships USS instances
  • These occur more than once in the notes. Please use named refs. Also watch for "U.S." vs "US":
    • Breyer, Battleships and Battlecruisers of the World, p.263
    • Brown The Grand Fleet, p.23
    • Friedman, Battleship Design and Development, p.91
    • Friedman, U.S. Battleships, p.69
    • Friedman, US Battleships, p.52
    • Gardiner, Eclipse of the Big Gun, p.15
Completed. The Land (talk) 14:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • These occur in notes, but not in the references section:
    • Evans and Peattie, Kaigun
    • Groner, German Warships 1815-1945, Volume One: Major Surface vessels.
    • Mackay R. Fisher of Kilverstone.
These 3 done. The Land (talk) 14:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fitzsimons, Volume 15, p.1635, and Volume 24, p.2587, "Washington".
    • Jentshura, Jung, Mickel, Warships of the IJN p.22–3.
In progress.. The Land (talk) 14:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These 2 sorted; Fitzsimons removed, Jentshura was present in the refs list but malformatted. The Land (talk) 20:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Massie, Dreadnought, p.474
Done.The Land (talk) 14:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Sea Fighter Nevada Ready For Her Test" (PDF), The New York Times (16 October 1915), p. 12.
In progress.... The Land (talk) 14:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorted/ The Land (talk) 20:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fairbanks C. The Dreadnought Revolution, International History Review 1991
Done. The Land (talk) 14:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Naval Annual 1895, The Naval War Between China and Japan and Lesson From the War in the East
    • The Naval Annual 1899, Naval Aspects of the Spanish-American War
Removed these two (lucky I checked that as Sondhaus's account actaully contradicts what that section of the article said...) The Land (talk) 20:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 02:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eeeya, wow, you see, we just don't have the manpower to actually check all this info. See forex "an impressive demonstration of British industrial might", which Stanley Sandler explains away as "something of a stunt" in "Battleships: An Illustrated History of Their Impact", p. 89. I trust that everything (or almost everything) you have here accurately reflects your sources, but I fear that over-reliance on one or two sources may lead to holes in the data... Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 03:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like we've relied very heavily on Breyer and Friedman. Generally, I've taken three accounts of battleship development, from the three most significant naval powers - Friedman (US), Breyer (Ger) and Brown (UK). A good 50% of the references are for statements like "X ship had Y calibre guns"; all those references go to Breyer, who is pretty authoritative on such matters (except about speculative designs!); and Friedman's 'Battleship Design and Development' is the only place which covers almost all the technical mattes in one place, so the references draw heavily on that as well.
Re the un-bilbiographied sources, argh! Have done the 'easy' ones, will get onto the rest later, along with the notes/refs issue. That redlinked template; can't see it appearing anywhere to the reader, can't see it anywhere in the edit screen either, so don't really know what it's doing there... The Land (talk) 08:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ling.Nut's HARI review (in progress)

Title
Dreadnought revolutionized naval warfare and industry-and helped launch a world war.Authors:Jordan, Jonathan W.Source:Military History; Jan/Feb2007, Vol. 23 Issue 10, p23-26, 3p

* Before gun tests [on the Dreadnought] were held on October 18, critics claimed that the shock of eight 12-inch guns fired simultaneously would damage or perhaps even sink the warship. Officers, holding their breath, watched the guns roar and waited for reports from the ship's departments to come in. There hadn't been the slightest damage. In fact, sailors eating in the mess hall below decks barely knew what happened when firing commenced.

Reject; slightly complex because blast damage was an issue in the design of dreadnoughts (e.g. Position of Main Armament para 2); nevertheless none of my sources talk about the risk of Dreadnought being sunk (or otherwise badly damaged) by her own guns; in fact the total weight of broadside (-> impulse from firing) hadn't grown much from previous battleship designs. 'Critics' might have 'claimed' it was possible but frankly they were talking nonsense.— Preceding unsigned comment added by The Land (talk • contribs)

* The British government was stung by the German challenge. While Pax Britannia was reaching its zenith, Britain had maintained a "two-power standard," which decreed that the Royal Navy should exceed the might of the next two largest navies combined. As an island dependent on its colonies and sea trade, the British government took as gospel that it could protect its empire only with a fleet that ruled the waves. If Germany, which had the most powerful army on the Continent, fielded a navy that could command the North Sea even for a short time, it could threaten the British homeland with invasion...Winston Churchill, then first lord of the Admiralty, summed up the British perspective in a secret memorandum to Canada's prime minister in August 1912:Great Britain can never violate German territory even after a defeat of that Power at sea, her Army not being organised or strong enough for such an undertaking. Germany with her large Army could, however, if she chose, invade and conquer Great Britain after a successful naval campaign in the North Sea….A decisive battle lost at sea by Germany would still leave her the greatest Power in Europe. A decisive battle lost at sea by Great Britain would for ever ruin the United Kingdom, would shatter the British Empire to its foundations, and change profoundly the destiny of its component parts...In the face of Germany's naval buildup, King Edward's ministers tried vainly to convince the kaiser to scale back his naval program. In the 1907 and 1908 program years, Germany had added four Nassau-class dreadnoughts to its High Seas Fleet. More followed, and by November 1914, three months after hostilities broke out, Germany had produced 17 world-class battleships, with two more under construction..

Have; Dreadnought Building and Anglo-German Arms Race, though I should perhaps add something about the two-power standard.

* The blow fell when Fisher took 154 warships out of active service. In cutting out the venerated battleships that had maintained Queen Victoria's empire for generations, Fisher repeated his clarion call for reform, enjoining his subordinates: "No pandering to sentiment! No regard for susceptibilities! No pity for anyone! We must be ruthless, relentless and remorseless!" Over the next three years, Fishers reforms cut 5.4 million pounds sterling from the navy's annual budget, and he was about to put the savings into something entirely new.

Ignore; perfectly true, but this pre-dates dreadnoughts, and we can't include every point about British naval strategy in the article. The last sentence is irrelevant; Dreadnought was not significatnly more expensive than earlier battleships.

*Lawrence Sondhaus, Naval Warfare, 1815-1914: The completion of the Dreadnought had an immediate impact on the shipbuilding programs of every other significant navy in the world... Within seven years... [big snip] the possesion of dreadnoughts meant that a country counted for something in global or regional balances of power... page 201.

Have; first para of lead section; Dreadnought Building first para (it would be fair to say that Sondhaus's book did more to inform my general approach to battleships

Several sources state that the creation of the dreadnought ironically wiped out Britain's naval superiority overnight. All pre-dreadnoughts were immeditely obsolete; all countries were starting more or less even with the new technology. Sondhaus mentions this on p. 199; I saw another article which stated that the germans grasped this...

Added - can be dealt with by adding a sentence to first para of Dreadnought Building.
  • Battleships: An Illustrated History of Their Impact By Stanley Sandler.
  • Dreadnought was first battleship without a ram, but still carried an underwater bulge p. 36...
Ignore; might be true, but there was never any real prospect of an 1890s battleship using its ram in action.
  • fast construction "somethig of a stunt" p. 89
Ignore; I have read that corners were cut to keep to the year-and-a-day timeframe, so 'stunt' is probably justified; equally, there was really no prospect of any other navy matching the timeframe.
  • A dreadnought cost only one-quarter more than the newest (and inferior) pre-dreadnought p. 91 ...
Added something about costs (nb that while Dreadnought was not that pricey, costs increased markedly thereafter for bigger and better ships.
  • The greater beam of german dreadnoughts.. water-tight.. none would be lost until WWII (p. 93)...
  • Not one dreadnought was lost during WWI solely to naval gunfire or even to submarine torped (pp 110-111).
Ignore this last one; since there was only one significant battles, and that was indecisive, it's no surprise none was lost.
  • Dreadnought: Blunder, or Stroke of Genius? John Brooks War in History 2007 14 (2) 157-178
  • Wilhelm II ...blamed deteriorating Anglo-German relations squarely on what he decried as ‘the entirely crazy Dreadnought policy of Sir J. Fisher and His [Britannic] Majesty’ which, he claimed, had destroyed British maritime superiority. Tirpitz, for his part, argued that, with the Dreadnought, the British had 'made a mistake in the face of Germany and are angry about it. This annoyance will increase when they see that we follow immediately'. H. Herwig, ‘The German Reaction to the Dreadnought Revolution’, International History Review XIII (1991), pp. 279 and 281. The Novelle of March 1908 authorized an increase in Germany's annual building rate to three battleships and one battlecruiser for the next four years. The British response was at first cautious but, by the beginning of 1909, a full-blown navy scare had erupted. Comparisons were expressed almost entirely in terms of numbers of dreadnought battleships, which both sides now accepted as the only units of naval strength.
First point; Ignore; not sure what Germans blustering at the time has to add to the article.
Second point; Have in Anglo-German Arms Race section, though it could do with some further tweaking
  • The committees set up by Fisher ... accepted considerable technical risks by adopting turbines of unprecedented size, and an all-big-gun armament which, at that time, could not be aimed continuously and fired in controlled salvoes; furthermore, although the instruments for controlling long-range fire had been identified, few had yet been developed and tried.
Have third para of 'Building the First Dreadnoughts' and also the 'Long-Range Gunnery' section.
  • The new policy in effect reversed the long-established Admiralty preference for responding to, rather than leading, naval innovation...it can be argued that, if Britain had continued with its established policy, the dreadnought race between Britain and Germany would have started later and avoided much of the intense rivalry and suspicion that poisoned relations between the two countries.
Not sure if this is add or ignore. Too much "This is why the British decided to build dreadnoughts when they did" without balancing "And this is what the Americans and Japanese were thinking along the same lines" is an anglocentric POV.
  • Nonetheless, the dreadnought type was undoubtedly coming. And Fisher's policy permitted substantial cutbacks for several years in Britain's naval expenditure, while giving it a lead in dreadnought numbers which it was able to maintain. But, paradoxically, the policy that began as one of economy soon led to the enormously expensive competition with Germany. This eventually resulted in a serious financial crisis in Germany that curtailed its naval ambitions. Because of these successes, Fisher cannot be accused of an outright blunder. But neither does Fisher’s dreadnought policy deserve to be hailed as a stroke of genius. It had been largely settled within six months of his becoming first sea lord. But, when judged in the context of that time and of previous Admiralty policy, it was, in too many respects, risky, insufficiently considered, ill-informed, and unnecessary.
Part have and part ignore. Exactly what Fisher's 'dreadnought policy' was, is rather controversial (para 2, 'Building the first Dreadnoughts'); it is also a little false to say dreadnoughts 'led' to naval competition, because the competition pre-dates the dreadnoughts.
  • re: "the competition pre-dates the dreadnoughts." Many folks seem to be arguing that Fisher started an arms race. Will find quotes.
  • Review Essay: Gunnery, Procurement, and Strategy in the Dreadnought Era. Jon Tetsuro Sumida The Journal of Military History 69 (October 2005): 1179–87
  • In the face of British relative economic and naval decline, and given the vulnerability of Britain's home waters and extended trade routes to simultaneous major attack in the event of war against several powers with large fleets, Fisher abandoned the "traditional" practice of responding to the advent of new weapons. Instead he adopted a policy of promoting technological innovation in order to achieve vital strategic objectives.
Have the idea that Dreadnought was a remarkable technological innovation. Have a note about Sumida's view thet Fisher was really interested in battlecruisers, not battleships. Ignore more general statements about Fisher's policy of innovation and British grand strategy (outside the scope of this article). Bear in mind this article is about 'dreadnoughts' in general and not HMS Dreadnought or Fisher in particular.
  • The Naval Policy of Austria-Hungary, 1867-1918: Navalism, Industrial Development, and the Politics of Dualism By Lawrence Sondhaus While 70 percent of the price of a British dreadnought went to workers' salaries, similar labor costs would account for 32 percent of expenditure on Austro-Hungarian dreadnoughts. p.191
Ignore; interesting but far, far too detailed and not particularly relevant.
  • Much talk of how the political situation changed/impacted the miltary: reduced threat from France/Russia; advent of German threat in the North Sea.
  • Arms, Economics and British Strategy: From Dreadnoughts to Hydrogen Bombs By G. C. Peden...
  • Dreadnoughts represented a major increase in expense as well as fighting power. Pre-dreadnoughts completed between 1895 and 1904 cost about £1 million each; the Dreadnought cost nearly £2 million, and the first battle-cruisers £1.75 million. p. 23
'Reject, false comparison, Dreadnoughts cost only a little more than the alternative modern pre-dreadnoughts, which I will be added as mentioned above
  • Fisher was much criticised, both inside and outside the navy, for building dreadnoughts, on the grounds that he thereby did away with Britain's overwhelming superiority of about three to one over Germany based on pre-dreadnoughts. The Manchester Guardian spoke for many when it claimed that... pp. 23-24
Added, agreed above we need to mention the idea of a zero starting point.
  • the first dreadnought battleships cost about 0.1 per cent of national income p. 374
Ignore - and whose national income? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Land (talk • contribs)

}}

Just so everybody is aware without trawling the article history, and to check my understanding, this refers to:
Terminal punctuation of captions e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dreadnought&diff=266655486&oldid=266607482
Punctuation within ""s e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dreadnought&diff=next&oldid=266655486
Inconsistency between use of single and double quotes
Misuse of " rather than "
Presence of article title in section headings e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dreadnought&diff=next&oldid=266655937
I think this is justified in the case of 'Dreadnought Building' - unless someone can suggest a clearer title for that section which avoids using the word 'dreadnought' - but will fix the other instances.
Have I got that right? The Land (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Think these are fixed. The Land (talk) 19:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments from David Cane on the first few sections:
    • Lead
      • shoudn't the first picture be of the Dreadnought that gave its name to the type rather than the USS Texas?
        • this has been raised on the article talk page several times. Dreadnought is not a particularly representative dreadnought. The image of Texas also has the advantage of being in colour. The Land (talk) 19:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Rather than link to the general article arms race it might be better to link to the more specific Origins of World War I#Arms Race.
      • Single quotes used around 'all-big-gun' and 'dreadnoughts' in the first paragraph but double quotes used around "super-dreadnoughts" in the second and "Dreadnoughts" in the third.
      • Explain here or somewhere what 'all-big-gun' means in practice - at what calibre does a gun become 'big'?
      • dreadnought in the third paragraph is used in the generic sense but italicised in the same way as the specific sense of HMS Dreadnought and Dreadnought from the first and second paragraphs.
      • "vast resources" is undefined both in terms of size and what "resources" means - money, material, time?
    • Origins
    • Long-range gunnery
      • "U.S." and "US" both used.
      • It might be useful to clearly state what was considered short and long range and what is medium and large calibre.
        • If that were possible, I would do it. Unfortunately, there is no consistency. E.g. an 8-inch or 9.2-inch gun could be 'medium' calibre on one ship but 'heavy' on another
      • Explain why naval gunnery was inaccurate at more than 3,000 yards.
      • "longer distances" should be "greater distances"
      • "In 1903, the US ordered..." should be "US Navy ordered..." or "US government ordered..."
      • Admiral Jackie Fisher should be linked here at his first appearance rather than in Building the first dreadnoughts section.
        • Have added a link, and don't think that linking to him twice constitutes over-linking. The Land (talk) 20:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think the link should be in the style of First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir John "Jackie" Fisher rather than just Jackie Fisher as he has not been mentioned before in the article.
      • Naval War College should be linked here at its first appearance rather than in All-big-gun mixed-caliber ships section.
        • Changed.
    • All-big-gun mixed-caliber ships
      • metric equivalent for 9.2 in guns given in centimetres where elsewhere millimetres are used. Issue exists throughout the article.
Thanks for spotting that, will get onto it. The Land (talk) 20:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The switch to all-big-gun designs
      • Both "fire control" and "firecontrol" are used. Shouldn't it be hyphenated.
        • Let's go for 'fire control'. Rarely hyphenated in my sources.
      • Was it new gun mountings that improved the rate of fire or the mechanisation of the handling of the shells and propellant charges?
        • Friedman actually simply says 'guns' though I agree it was the mechanisation of the guns and their ammunition handling that made the difference. Such mechanisation s built into the mounting. The Land (talk) 20:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • What was "the principal objection to 12-inch guns"?
    • Building the first dreadnoughts
    • Design
      • Did the Washington Naval Treaty specific limit the size of dreadnoughts as a type or simply limit the maximum size of naval ships? the Washington Naval Treaty article seems to indicate that it was "Capital ships" that were limited and makes no reference to dreadnoughts as a type. This seems to be supported by the statement in the lead that the term fell out of use after WWI because all ships had dreadnought-like features.
    • Armament
  • --DavidCane (talk) 17:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • More comments from David Cane
    • General
      • Captialisation of navy is inconsistent in a couple of places. "Royal Navy" should be capitalised and so should "U.S. Navy" or "United Stated Navy", "Royal Hellenic Navy" and "Imperial Japanese Navy". "German navy" (both capitalised and uncapitalised occur) and "Austro-Hungarian Navy" should not as they are generic names. I suggest that the solution is to use the English version of their proper names linked to the relevant articel on first usage in the style Imperial German Navy (Kaiserliche Marine), Imperial Japanese Navy (Nippon Kaigun), Imperial Austro-Hungarian Navy (Kaiserliche und Königliche Kriegsmarine), Hellenic Royal Navy (Vasilikón Naftikón), Italian Royal Navy (Regia Marina), etc. Incidentally, there is no link to the French or Russian navies although there are references to their ships.
        • Good point. Searching for "Royal navy" case-sensitive I don't find anything; can you spot any where this is wrong? I've inserted several wikilinks and I think the capitalisation is now all correct. Not every nation's navy is mentioned and I don't really see a problem with this; e.g. France only gets a paragraph, and it is written from the perspective of France as a power, not the perspective of the French navy.The Land (talk) 19:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Main armament power and caliber
    • Secondary armament
  • --DavidCane (talk) 23:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — I've got a hardcover copy of Massie's Dreadnought, and I believe you could bludgeon someone with it fairly easily. JKBrooks85 (talk) 06:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not clear what this comment means? ;-) The Land (talk) 19:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still no progress on the Jentshura cite? Did you translate it? Did you copy it from another Wikipedia article? Besides, the full title isn't given..? Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 06:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oversight - I have the book, just didn't put the details in the article, will sort, perhaps tonight. The Land (talk) 11:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some More Comments from DavidCane
    • Central Citadel
      • I presume the citadel had a floor, just not an armoured one.
Yes. The Land (talk) 14:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • "However, it tended to result in the main belt being very short, sometimes below the waterline." I assume that "very short" means in the vertical direction. Does this mean that it did not go far below the waterline or not far above it?
Dealt with. The Land (talk) 14:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think the fact that there was a greater difference between the thicknesses of Yamato's and Dreadnoughts deck armour than between the thicknesses of their main belt armour can necessarily be construed to mean that generally "the amount of protection devoted to the deck increased much more rapidly than did the amount in the main belt". For instance, they may have both increased at an even rate for the 35 years between the two ships' designs, then made a big jump in the Yamato. I also don't think that two examples can be used to extrapolate a progression. Better to just give Yamato's relative levels of protection as a example of the change in emphasis.
Addressed The Land (talk) 21:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Propulsion
      • I think I know the answer but were the new reciprocating engines cleaner than earlier models or cleaner than turbines?
Yup. :) The Land (talk) 21:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • "the U.S. Navy, which even in the early 1900s was planning to cruise across the Pacific to engage the Japanese in the Philippines". Presumably, this would be in the sense of contingency planning for possible war scenarios rather than actually going to war.
Yes. Clarified "in the event of war" The Land (talk) 21:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fuel
      • "and that for the same volume of fuel carried an oil-fired ship would have much greater range." - remove "carried" and add commas after "that" and "fuel".
Tweaked along those lines.
done The Land (talk) 21:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • "These benefits meant that as early as 1901 Fisher". Add commas before and after "as early as 1901".
sorted The Land (talk) 21:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Anglo-German arms race
      • Churchill as First Lord of the Admiralty would not have taken the step to seek an alliance with France, although he may have recommended it to the Prime Minister, H. H. Asquith, and the Foreign Minister, Sir Edward Grey.
Quite right. I've altered this paragraph a little to reflect what Kennedy says in more detail. The Land (talk) 21:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • U.S. Navy
      • Shouldn't U.S in section heading be spelled out in full
      • "...looked forward to the standard practice for future..." seems a bit strange, suggest "...was a precursor of the standard practice of future..."
      • "...forced to consort..." seems a bit arch, suggest "..forced to operate..."
    • Japan
      • To give a time context, it might be worth restating the year of the Japanese victory over Russia.
      • "12 in" instead of "12-in" used elsewhere and conversion is given as 300 mm, although it is given elsewhere as the more accurate 305 mm.
    • In other countries
      • First paragraph - "It was not until September 1910 the first of the Courbet class..." needs "that" after "1910".
      • "Over this period...". Specify which period?
      • "In June 1909, the Imperial Russian Navy constructed four Gangut class dreadnoughts...". That's when they were ordered rather than constructed.
      • How were the Russian ships badly flawed?
  • --DavidCane (talk) 00:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Couple more comments
    • Super-dreadnoughts
      • First sentence: "...a new generation of more powerful super-dreadnoughts were being built." should be "was being built" as generation is singular.
Done. The Land (talk) 21:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The sentence on fuel is not really necessary as the topic has already been dealt with in it own section above.
Indeed. done. The Land (talk) 21:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • General
      • Some comparable conversions to current values of the expenditure would be useful in the article. For example, in the paragraph on the June 1919 Admiralty plan, the cost is given as £171 million. Ideally this should be converted to current rates using templates so that "£171 million (approximately £{{Formatprice|{{Inflation|UK|171000000|1919|r=-4}}}} today).{{Inflation-fn|UK}}" becomes "£171 million (approximately £9.93 billion today).[1]"
Done; also in footnote A9 where the costs of individual ships are listed. The Land (talk) 21:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--DavidCane (talk) 00:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ UK Retail Price Index inflation figures are based on data from Clark, Gregory (2017). "The Annual RPI and Average Earnings for Britain, 1209 to Present (New Series)". MeasuringWorth. Retrieved May 7, 2024.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Dreadnought&oldid=1223716962"