Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of breastwork monitors of the Royal Navy/archive1
Tools
Actions
General
Print/export
In other projects
Appearance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 17:04, 8 November 2010 [1].
List of breastwork monitors of the Royal Navy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
- Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These virtually unknown ships were the direct ancestors of the pre-dreadnought battleship and the dreadnought. I think that it's about time that they got a little love. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 03:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per usual disclaimer. I would appreciate a quick check of my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 13:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments:
- I think the lead should have an explanation of what monitor is.
- Breastwork monitor is linked already.
- That is not enough. Ruslik_Zero 18:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Monitor is already linked.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I mean you should write a single sentence explanation. Ruslik_Zero 19:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Where? Ruslik_Zero 16:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 2nd and 3rd sentences of the first paragraph.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- These sentences have not changed since 9 October, when I posted my comments. Ruslik_Zero 16:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So you want explanations of breastwork monitor and monitor both?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the lead should have an explanation of what "monitor" is. I think this is sufficiently clear. Ruslik_Zero 18:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree, the improvements listed of a breastwork monitor over a regular monitor provide enough context for a reader who can click on the link provided if he wants more info. The focus here is not the monitor type.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the lead should have an explanation of what "monitor" is. I think this is sufficiently clear. Ruslik_Zero 18:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So you want explanations of breastwork monitor and monitor both?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- These sentences have not changed since 9 October, when I posted my comments. Ruslik_Zero 16:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 2nd and 3rd sentences of the first paragraph.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Where? Ruslik_Zero 16:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I mean you should write a single sentence explanation. Ruslik_Zero 19:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Monitor is already linked.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not enough. Ruslik_Zero 18:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Breastwork monitor is linked already.
The units conversions are not consistent. Gun calibers are sometimes converted to mm from inches, but sometimes not. The same with armour.- Only the first use is converted.
- It is not always the first use. 12-inch shell is mentioned before the first table. In addition 12 kn is converted 3 times. Ruslik_Zero 18:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Good catch, fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not always the first use. 12-inch shell is mentioned before the first table. In addition 12 kn is converted 3 times. Ruslik_Zero 18:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Only the first use is converted.
The section about Cyclops-class ships is too short. It should contain something more specific than were slightly modified versions of Cerberus.- I'm not sure what else can be added. The stats are very comparable and they didn't lead exciting lives.
- You can write what those slight modifications were. Ruslik_Zero 18:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done.
- You can write what those slight modifications were. Ruslik_Zero 18:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what else can be added. The stats are very comparable and they didn't lead exciting lives.
- Can years be added to images?
- Done where it is known.
Pre-dreadnought_battleship article says that HMS Devastation was the first sea going breastwork monitor. I am not an expert in ship classification, but should not it be in this list?
- I think the lead should have an explanation of what monitor is.
Ruslik_Zero 19:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not in my opinion because Devastation was far larger than these ships and not intended for the same type of roles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support All criteria met. I checked the photos and all is well in that department. I cannot vouch for the condition of the Commonwealth English as I don't use it myself. Brad (talk) 03:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - see nothing wrong after a full read-through; definitely meets the criteria. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Courcelles 05:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments
That's all that strikes me here. Courcelles 21:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support Another fine list. Had never heard of this particular type of ship before, so it was a nice read. Courcelles 05:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.