Talk:List of battleships of France
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Suggestions for improving the article
Copied from User talk:Toddy1
Good work! Very thorough and just the kind of treatment those list articles need. I can see only two ways of improving it. First when talking about 'lozenge' or 'pre-dreadnought' layout there should be something to explain to the reader what that means - whether it's a wikilink, reference or parenthesis. Secondly, some of the references probably need page references. I wouldn't say this is necessary for the bulk of them - if you are referencing to (say) Conway's where every ship or class has an article and those articles are all comprehensively indexed, there is no need for a page number. However you might think about whether this applies to every statement, or every source, you have referenced. Thanks a lot for your work! The Land (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Copied from User talk:The ed17
| This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please improve this article if you can. (May 2008) |
You added the above tag to List of battleships of France. Was there a reason for this? There is a reference for every ship listed. The brief introduction at the top has some references, but is mainly justified by the referenced lists of ships. It is difficult to understand what cleaning up is possible.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- I've removed the tag. Since it is a list, rather than a proper article, it will inevitably look different. The Land (talk) 21:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- I apoligize--I aught to have used {{cleanup-section}}...I only meant that the introduction should be modified, and I didn't want to do it becasue I didn't know where that information should go. I just did not think that the intro looks right...if I had taken more time, maybe I would not have done that. the_ed17 02:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Introduction. The introduction is not meant to be a history of the development of French armoured battleships. However some introduction is necessary:
- to explain that there were patterns of development (i.e. it is more than a 'phonebook' for battleships),
- because most people have no idea how the 'stationnairre' (2nd class) ships fitted in and why they stopped building them
- to explain about the coastal service ships.
The Land has suggested that something should be written explaining the difference between the standard 'pre-dreadnought' layout and the rival lozenge layout for battleships. (Note that lozenge was a contemporary term, whilst 'pre-dreadnought' was not.) I agree that this would be desirable - it would be best done as wikilinks to an article on battleship development that discussed the issues of 1880s/90s battleship design.
If you have ideas about the introduction, why not sketch them out here. Other people can slot in the facts--Toddy1 (talk) 04:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

