Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of breastwork monitors of the Royal Navy/archive1

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]

Featured list candidates/List of breastwork monitors of the Royal Navy/archive1

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:
1. 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]
2. ~~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]
3. ~~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.
4. Can years be added to images?
  - Done where it is known.
5. ~~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?~~

Ruslik_Zero 19:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. - 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

" Sir Edward Reed, Chief Constructor of the Royal Navy during the 1860s" would have a comma after Navy here so it's clear what is "during the 1860s".
"then ordered another just like it" not keen on "just like it", sounds a little too colloquial.
Is there a link for "draught"? Think non-expert again.
I would say that Half Moon Bay is off Australia otherwise it's not clear.
"rarely, if ever, left their home port" since there were only two of them, it should be easy to say whether one of them never left home port.
- Sturm, do you know which? - Dank (push to talk)
  - As far as I can tell the ships only left port for gunnery exercises, but I'm not sure where exactly that was so it could well have been in the outer areas of the port.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would have thought BritEng to be predominant here, so "maximise" not "maximize", "mobilised" not "mobilized" etc.
- Anyone? - Dank (push to talk)
  - Done, but I'm not good at catching the differences unless they involve extra letters for BritEng. If you see any others, please speak up.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Especially as I thought USEng spelled manoeuvre as manoeuver?
- We spell it "maneuver". - Dank (push to talk)
  - Okay, but the Engvar needs to be internally consistent. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Beeler ref needs an en-dash.

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Done except as noted. - Dank (push to talk) 12:35, 19 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

Why aren't the ship's articles linked? Some of the ships have articles, but no links to them in this list.

That's all that strikes me here. Courcelles 21:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of them are stub or start quality, but it's easy enough to fix.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:11, 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.