The text of this article seems to be solidly within the British point of view - no German naval officers are named, for example. It would be interesting to find out how the German sailors involved undertook the battle. - user:Montrealais
It seems to me that the orders of battle should be moved to a seperate list due to the huge number of ships involved in this battle. Just a thought. Gentgeen 09:54, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Good idea. What i said on Cleanup (excessively for the location) was
- Battle of Jutland Thorough, 2800 word article, w/ 58 word intro. I want to know if Jellico was considered a hero, but the outcome is summarized as " After an inconclusive encounter both sides claimed victory." How about an Overview section after ToC, say several hundred words (including, if i grasp correctly, "kept the German fleet from affecting the outcome of the war" and the Churchill quote abt the "over-cautious" admiral being the only one who could have lost the war in an hour or an afternoon or whatever. --Jerzy
- but those 2800-and-some words are just the running text, and the orders of battle are additional. --Jerzy 12:10, 2004 Feb 7 (UTC)
- There's no value to the reader in separating the OB - it's at the end, nothing "hidden" by being after it. It does need tweaking; for instance, we don't need detailed stats for each capital ship, that's why we have links to ship articles, and the minor ships can be comma-separated lists of names after each division. Stan 13:44, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- No value to the users who matter, but still, take pity on those of us still on dial-up. Most readers of the article will not even glance at OB, important tho it is to full coverage, but have to sit thru its loading time. --Jerzy 21:31, 2004 Feb 7 (UTC)
I'm glad to see that this article is the object of some active interest. Does anyone know that it's on Featured Articles, but is about to lose that status? I'm the guilty party who raised an objection to its retention; read about it at [1]. Since no one else has done anything, I'm now trying to copy edit the article to the point that I can remove my objection. Everyone else is welcome to join, especially those who know more about naval history than I do.
By the way, here's what happened: it got on the FA list back when there was no particular procedure to put things there. After a procedure was adopted, everything that was already on the list came up for review; many articles were challenged on various grounds. There seems to have been a flaw in this process: old articles were never flagged so that people seeing them would know that they were Featured, or that they were under challenge. Dandrake 21:27, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)
Trying to clarify the text for people who aren't sure what crossing the T is, or (like me) have never heard of the Jade [Estuary]. Any interested parties please keep an eye on my historical accuracy, as well as whether I'm mangling the prose. Dandrake 00:01, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)
Query:was it our bloody ships or our bloody battlecruisers with which something was wrong that day? I'd always heard the latter version. Dandrake 00:32, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)
- "Ships" in all the quotes I've heard" Arwel 00:37, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)