Wikipedia

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

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history | Assessment
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) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Majestic-class battleship

edit
Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

Majestic-class battleship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

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 They were the oldest battleships in RN service during WWI, though they were mostly withdrawn from front-line duty by 1916.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)[reply]

Question: Is this one comprehensive enough for FAC? - Dank (push to talk) 21:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Support Comments

Support Comments: AustralianRupert (talk) 04:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • "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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

Comments:

  • 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.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Parsecboy: are you in a position to respond to Maury's comments? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:26, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Majestic-class_battleship&oldid=696147425"