Talk:French ironclad Redoutable
 | A fact from French ironclad Redoutable appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 1 November 2005. The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg)
This Article is Misleading edit
“[Redoutable] was the first warship in the world to use steel as the principal building material”. This article is misleading. It suggests that the construction material steel played some sort of significant role. The nature of the armour plating was deeply less significant than the development of armour plated warships. France launched in 1859 the first ocean-going ironclad warship, the wooden-hulled “Gloire”. That WAS deeply significant. The nature of the armour plating was not. The “Gloire” started an arms race with the RN. HMS Warrior and her sister ship HMS Black Prince were a response to the “Gloire” and were the first armour-plated, iron-hulled warships, and were built in 1859–1861. Naval technology moved very fast at this time and, in 1873, when “Redoutable” was launched it was, to the best of my limited knowledge of 19th century naval architecture, already redundant. This article about the “first warship in the world to use steel” should at least include some context. PeterColdridge (talk) 20:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
2005 edit
Has this ship ever seen combat? Did this ship sank any other ship ? 81.245.105.236 (talk) 22:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Quotes edit
Quoting without sourcing is about the worst kind of intellectual dishonesty. --91.55.220.206 (talk) 00:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- Actually altering quotations so they say what you think they ought to have said is even worse. I have corrected the later problem, and put the source of the quotation in as a citation rather than having it in brackets at the end, which is what the original creator of this page did.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Development of this article edit
This article could do with a lot of work. Fortunately this ship is well documented in secondary sources. There are contradictions. What the 1881 Scientific American article said is interesting, but was evidently not completely accurate.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)