Talk:South Dakota-class battleship (1920)

Items for Possible Deletion
I'm always hesitant to remove content that someone else had put in before my edit, but I don't think the paragraph about the Lexingtons is relevant, and the section on reuse of names seems unnecessary. I'd like to delete both of these. Comments?--Busaccsb (talk) 04:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Standard type battleship
I noticed that standard type is not a regular article, but a category page. This seems odd, given that it goes beyond what a category page usually does, and actually offers a good explanation of what the standard type is. I think this should be be an article. Comments?--Busaccsb (talk) 04:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Construction / Shipyard / Progress
Since the individual ships do not have Wikipedia pages, I think an table listed these ships, which shipyard for each ship, and perhaps keel laying, and cancellation date might be helpful. Wfoj2 (talk) 22:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Missing references
A couple of references are cited in the article without being included in the bibliography. These are: Hone 2011 and Anderson and Baker 1977. These really need to be added or the citations removed.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, I've been trolling the Internet, unsuccessfully, trying to figure out which references these relate to. Since the original editor is no longer active on en.wiki, I've sent them an email asking for clarification. — Huntster (t @ c) 11:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Battle Line: The United States Navy 1919-1939 is probably the best candidate, though the only editions are 2006 and 2013. Innovation in carrier aviation was published in 2011, but is unlikely to have covered the propulsion system of a class of battleships in any detail. Anybody have easy access to Battleline to check the page numbers?
 * As for Anderson and Baker, that ref can be found here. I've added it to the article. Parsecboy (talk) 12:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Definitely not Innovation, as the page number given here matches to a citation list there. Are you sure about "CV-2 Lex and CV-3 Sara"? Seems odd, though I have no access to a copy to verify. — Huntster (t @ c) 12:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It's highly plausible that the "Lex and Sara" article would have made reference the South Dakota class, since they were contemporary designs, especially if, for instance, one of the classes borrowed design aspects from the other. I believe has the article - or at he at least had it when he wrote the Lexington-class aircraft carrier article - so perhaps he can confirm the reference. Parsecboy (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Both designs used turbo-electric propulsion and had much in common, so the ref is valid. I expanded the pages numbers in the cite to cover all the info covered.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Sturm. I may have found a nearby library with access to the Battle Line book, and hopefully that will help verify the "Hone 2011" reference. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:35, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect Unit Conversions
The unit conversions are incorrect for the ship's armor. 13.5 inches is 343mm not 340, and 5 inches is 127mm not 130. Is there a more accurate conversion system available? I was not able to edit the values manually due to them using a conversion system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prince of Darimar (talk • contribs) 10:27, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Turbo-electric drive
If she used DC propulsion motors the steam turbines would be coupled to generators (DC) not alternators (AC). Hugo999 (talk) 05:31, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Cancellation
So, except for the intro, nowhere in the article actually states that the class was cancelled because of the Washington Naval Treaty. It talks about the design process, the specs and then it ends, with just a note about what happened to the guns. It kinda feels unfinished. Cléééston (talk) 02:45, 13 July 2022 (UTC)