Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Pre-dreadnought

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.

Pre-dreadnought

I've just been developing this article as part of my series on battleships (battleship and ironclad warship already FAs, dreadnought next on the list). I think it is now pretty comprehensive and comprehensively sourced - am very happy with the way it's turned out. A peer review was brief but helpful. The Land 18:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — Fascinating stuff. Something that might be helpful is expanding the lede to include more about the development of the type. As the article says, the history of the class is somewhat confused. That being said, you might find it useful to change the first paragraph of the lede to something like this:

A pre-dreadnought is a battleship of the type designed between the mid-1890s and 1905. Designed as replacements for monitor-type ironclads, typical characteristics of the class include X, X, and X. The X-class ship best typifies the class, and was built in X.

That's my suggestion, and it'd help give an overview of the kind of ship we're looking at here without going into the complex development history. JKBrooks85 20:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment(s)
- Concur with the above; I would rework the lead to read something like "A predreadnought was a battleship design implemented in 1890s to replace monitor-type warships. Pre-dreadnoughts were characterized by two heavy turrets at the for and aft ends of the ship and an array of secondary battery guns aligned on either side of the ship. They were rendered absoletle in 1905 with the commissioning of HMS dreadnought, the first battleship to have an all big gun layout arrayed along the ceter of the ship, and were subsequently phased out in favor of dreadought type battleships. Although considered absolete, a few predreadnoughts did see service in WWI and WWII."
- Alternate you pictures; you have a butload of photos on the right hand side of the article and very few on the left; on my moniter (I think about 1200xwhatever-the-number-is) the result is a rather large area of blank white space.
- I will add any other suggestions I can find tommorow should the oppertunity to do so present itself; right now though it is hard to see my computer screen (unsuprising since I have been staring at it for the last eight hours nonstop). It looks good though, keep it up! TomStar81 (Talk) 09:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - - I've moved the lead about to bit so it's clearer from the first paragraph what the article is about: also I've alternated some of the pictures. Thanks! The Land 19:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Looks good. Cla68 20:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support good article, enjoyed reading it. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Just one comment: I'd recommend including the fact that the Royal Sovereign had barbettes instead of turrets for its big guns. Otherwise, the article doesn't include any reason why it shouldn't be considered the first pre-Dreadnaught battleship. JKBrooks85 15:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You mean, like, "The subsequent Royal Sovereign class of 1889 retained barbettes" ;-) Thank you anyway! The Land 16:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fascinating and well written expansion to an important article. I corrected the two red links that you had remaining in the text. --MChew 16:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.