Talk:Fourth-rate

Military history: Maritime / British / European / Early Modern

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800)

Ships

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

Grammar

I fixed a lot of the appalling spelling and punctuation, but more needs doing. Quite disgraceful.

First paragraph is navigational aid

Please do not remove the first paragraph as it functions as a quick navigational aid to the other articles in this series. Thank you. Petersam 03:53, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

puns

I love the pun in the external links section. So very Jack Aubrey...

Heh, it didn't even occur to me when writing it, must have been subconscious prankster at work! Stan 04:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed amusing. =) 152.23.196.162 07:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article!

Really good article! Well done to everyone who worked on it. DangerousNerd talk 00:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Capacity?

Unlike the articles on the 3rd, 5th and 6th rates for example, there is no mention here about the capacity in terms of number of men the 4th rates carried. Can anybody find out?

Capitalisation

It has become apparent that the words "first rate", "second rate", etc have become capitalised over the last year or so. This seems to me to directly contradict the guidance at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters), and I have changed them back again. To clarify, if we were talking about frigates, we would use lower case, because it's not a proper noun; "first rate" is exactly analogous. The usage on Category:Set indices on ships follows the lower case usage almost exclusively, as far as I can tell. Please address any concerns here before making wholesale changes back again.

On another note, some of the hyphenation has been rather patchy. Adjectival use will require a hyphen (first-rate ship) but when used as a noun (first rate), it does not. Again, I've made the changes were I've spotted the need.

Apologies if I've missed any or introduced any errors, since we all err from time to time. Shem (talk) 22:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a ship of the line

In the easy navigation part at the end of the page, 4th rank ships are under the title "Ships of the line" even though they were not suitable to be one. By renaming the title "Frigates" to "Warships/Frigates", one could replace it over that section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.54.243.153 (talk) 16:31, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]