Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lion-class battlecruiser/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11:08, 28 March 2017.

Lion-class battlecruiser

 * Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

The Lion-class battlecruisers were two of the more powerful battlecruisers deployed by the British during World War I. They spent most of the war deployed in home waters and were very active as they were the first responders to any sorties by their German counterparts. Lion was badly damaged during the Battles of Dogger Bank in 1915 and Jutland in 1916 while her sister Princess Royal was only lightly damaged at worst. Both ships were scrapped after the war as obsolete. As usual I'm looking for infelicitous language, uses of AmEng, and jargon terms that need to be linked or explained better. This recently passed a MilHist A-class review, which included an image review, and I believe that it meets the FAC criteria.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Image review
 * Suggest scaling up the plan and the map
 * File:Lion_class_battleship_-_Jane's_Fighting_Ships,_1919_-_Project_Gutenberg_etext_24797.png: image itself says 1918, title says 1919, description says 1920 - which is correct?
 * Fixed the caption; apparently the original drawing was republished in 1920 and credited to the 1919 edition of Janes.
 * File:HMS_Princess_Royal_LOC_18244u.jpg: when/where was this first published? Same with File:HMS_Lion_(Lion-class_battlecruiser).jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The first is a Bain collection image with no known copyright restrictions. Replaced the second one.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:08, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments 
 * Recommend ditching the hatnote - there's no connection between this article and the battleship class, apart from having the same name.
 * I still think that there's the possibility of confusion, "battleship, battlecruiser, what's the diff?"
 * "...the first German battlecruisers, the Moltke class..." - SMS Von der Tann was first.
 * Good catch
 * I'm not sure the quotation marks are necessary around "contingency"
 * I wonder how Burt is doing his math - I can't figure out a way in which there's a 70% increase from Indefatigable to Lion, unless he's comparing normal displacement of the former and loaded displacement of the latter (and even that comes up about a thousand tons short) - it's more like a 40% increase. Can you check Burt again to make sure that's not a typo?
 * You're right, screwed up which one was the divisor.
 * On nickel steel - usually, when I see references to nickel steel, it's referring to Harvey or Krupp steel, but it seems like here it's being used to mean something other that KCA.
 * Nickel steel, IIRC, predates Harvey steel and KCA. It might have been used for vertical armor when introduced, but after Harvey and KCA were developed it was often used for deck armor as it was significantly cheaper than either. I believe it was phased out after Krupp non-cemented armor was developed as that had better ductility.
 * "Her funnel uptakes...her vulnerability..." - presumably these should both be "their"? Parsecboy (talk) 18:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * All done, thanks for looking this over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks good now. Parsecboy (talk) 20:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Source review
 * Footnotes and references are formatted consistently.
 * Earwig looks fine.
 * What makes dreadnoughtproject.org reliable? Don't know if this has been discussed previously, but if so, point me in the right direction. Parsecboy (talk) 15:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * One of the primary authors, Simon Harley, has published articles on the pre-war Royal Navy in the Mariner's Mirror and is also an editor here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:03, 21 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I think Simon is fine, as is the PhD, but the other two contributors appear to be hobbyists, which I'm not sure cuts the mustard (especially since the one who handles the fire control stuff likely wrote the material you're using). You might just take the citation from their page and cite it directly. Parsecboy (talk) 12:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt
Excellently done as usual, just a few things: "before World War I". To use British terminology, I would say "before the First World War". I would also change the section heading "World War I" and elsewhere as necessary.
 * There's actually no strong national tie either way to using First World War or WWI; I've got plenty of British books that use WWI.
 * "German East Asia Squadron from using the Panama Canal. After the German squadron " I might say "German ships" or similar to avoid the repetition. C
 * Good idea.
 * "In 1920 they were both put into reserve and sold for scrap a few years later in accordance with the terms of the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922." I think there needs to be another "were" here before "sold". I might strike "both" though, as there were only two ships, "they" is pretty unambiguous.
 * Indeed.
 * I think in the first paragraph of the body, there should be some link to the pre-WWI Anglo-German naval arms race. A hatnote is one possibility. I might even say Asquith Government rather than simply Government, with a pipe to H. H. Asquith.
 * Excellent idea, although I tweaked it somewhat. I'm not sure, though, if I should explicitly mention that Asquith was the PM or not.
 * "Data from a nine-foot (2.7 m) Argo rangefinder located on top of the conning tower was input into a Mk I Dreyer Fire-Control Table" should "input" be "inputted"?
 * Technically, I think that you may be right, but I think it's one of those things where the verb and noun forms have merged. I've input a lot of data (and even single datums!), but I've never heard inputted in my life.
 * "pointers" link?
 * This one's a bit tricky, but I've rephrased it and added a link. How well does it work now?
 * "The conning tower sides were 10 inches (254 mm) thick and it had a three-inch roof" Assuming "it" refers to conning tower, I would say "sides of the conning tower" so you are referring to a noun rather than an adjective.
 * "In addition, the two four-inch guns mounted above the forward group of casemates were enclosed in casemates of their own to protect the gun crews from weather and enemy action as part of these modifications." the last phrase seems a little remote. I would start the sentence "As part of these modifications, the two ... " and forget about the in addition.
 * "Both ships were fitted with a single example" I might say "Each ship was fitted with one ..."
 * "made a port visit to Brest in February 1914 and the squadron then visited Russia in June." I would strike "then"
 * "Ten minutes later she'd closed the range enough" I did not think we used contractions.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:32, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your detailed comments; see if the changes that I made are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Support They all look good. Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:39, 14 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Support, will comment prose suggestions later. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  12:57, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. This is very good stuff. - Dank (push to talk) 15:40, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: I think we are safe to request a source review at the top of WT:FAC now. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:35, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Added one above. Parsecboy (talk) 15:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Support - I reviewed this closely at Milhist ACR and have reviewed the changes thus far. I believe it meets the FA criteria. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:35, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 11:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.