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

Lion-class battleship

 * Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:37, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

With the exception of the brand-new Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers, these battleships would have been the largest ships ever built by the Royal Navy. Construction of a pair began right before WW2 began and caused their eventual cancellation. Work began late in the war on new designs that would incorporate war experience, but a combination of ever more powerful weapons and post-war economic reality made them unaffordable and they were never ordered. The article passed a MilHist A-class review a few months ago and I believe that the article meets the FA criteria. I've written the article in past tense, as did the bulk of my sources, since construction was actually begun, to avoid a multiplicity of "would have"s and its synonyms which I fear would have caused loss of consciousness in the readers from the monotony. As always I'm looking for any remaining infelicitous prose or unexplained or unlinked jargon.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:37, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support by CPA-5

 * preliminary design work on a 35,000-ton ship Which kinda "tons"? I think long tons am I right?
 * It was converted on first use in the para above.
 * By MOS:UNITSYMBOLS it should be "Spell out in full" for long tons and short tons. CPA-5 (talk) 09:28, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, done both.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:16, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


 * decided to limit itself to 40,000 tons Same as above.
 * converted earlier in the paragraph
 * 785 feet (239.3 m), a beam of 105 feet (32.0 m) The oh isn't necessary.
 * system amidships from 13.25 feet (4.0 m) Same as above.
 * and a draught of 29 feet 6 inches (9.0 m) Same as above.
 * equipped with six 330-kilowatt (440 hp) turbogenerators What kinda horse power?
 * Not specified in the source.
 * and temperature of 700 °F (371 °C) I'm not sure or the Britons use °F instead of °C I think they use °C.
 * Not back then.
 * thick and was 433 feet (132.0 m) long The oh isn't necessary.
 * I see a lot of "em dashes" instead of "en dashes" like in this example with only 3–4.5 inches (76–114 mm) of armour.
 * That's a templated conversion; I rarely do them manually.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:19, 21 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Last thing please remove the oh in the "105 ft (32.0 m)" in the infobox. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:20, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * And done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:08, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Here you go. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:37, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:54, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks good in my view. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:11, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Image review


 * Suggest adding alt text


 * File:HMS_Lion_Unsourced.gif: if the original source is unknown, can information on immediate provenance be provided?
 * No, but it pretty well matches the drawings in Garzke and Dulin.
 * File:HMS_King_George_V_secondary_turret_SLV_Green.jpg: per the template, should provide details on first publication. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:41, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Not needed, taken before 1 January 1955--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:01, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

 * "Only two ships were laid down before the Second World War began in September 1939 and a third was ordered during the war, but their construction was suspended shortly afterwards. " I might sub a semicolon for the "and".
 * I dunno, that would leave a contrasting "but" in the latter half that refers to everything in front of it.
 * "although there was a proposal to modify one of the suspended ships into a hybrid battleship-aircraft carrier with two 16-inch gun turrets and a flight deck in 1941." To stop it from getting lost, I might move up the "in 1941" to after the word "proposal"
 * "The London Naval Treaty of 1930 extended the ban for five more years, which meant that almost all of the First World War-era ships would be eligible for replacement by the Washington Treaty's rules when it expired. " I am unsure what accord the "it" refers to.
 * It reads a bit muddled about what accord was in effect in 1937 by which the calibre was restricted when, by the terms of what I've read there, all agreements will have expired by that year at latest.
 * I think that I've clarified this, see how it works for you.
 * "The Board of Admiralty then began preliminary design work on a 35,000-ton ship armed with 16-inch guns and it was promising enough that the Director of Naval Construction (DNC) was ordered to further investigate such designs, providing for several aircraft as well" the last phrase seems tacked on, I'm not clear what is meant about the aircraft. I surmise they wanted the ship to be able to launch planes but that is just my surmise.
 * The preliminary designs were not intended to operate aircraft; when the design went to the DNC for more detailed work, the Admiralty added a requirement to operate aircraft. But this is pretty esoteric at this stage and can profitably be dropped.
 * Similarly to a bit above, I'm unclear what treaty still imposed limits after 31 March 1938. Were the Japanese parties to the agreement with the Americans talked about?
 * The Japanese rejected 2nd London in its entirety which basically made it irrelevant when the various escalator clauses kicked in. What can I add to help clarify the situation?
 * More soon. Interesting you're doing ships that never were while I'm doing a coin that never saw the light of day.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:19, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "but it was suspended again in May 1940." Anything to do with the political or military events of that month?
 * Probably, but not given in the source.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:32, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for looking this over, see if there are any further changes that you'd like to see made.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:32, 19 April 2019 (UTC) Support All looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:28, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Source review
 * Spotchecks not done, but nominator has a long history at FAC
 * Sources used are all high-quality references of the sort one would expect to be used. Citations are formatted uniformly. Parsecboy (talk) 18:01, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

FunkMonk

 * Will have a look soon. Interesting, almost like "alternative history" fiction. FunkMonk (talk) 18:11, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * At first skim, Vanguard is duplinked.
 * Good catch. Look forward to seeing the rest of your comments.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:44, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the wait, will read the rest soon. FunkMonk (talk) 04:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Link and spell out "King George V class" at first mention outside intro too.
 * Why? The link in the lede is only a couple of paras up.
 * Per WP:wikilinks, terms linked in the intro should be linked at first occurrence in the article body. FunkMonk (talk) 07:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Not quite. This is the relevant text from MOS:OVERLINK: "Generally, a link should appear only in an article, but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead."--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:05, 8 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Do we have schematics of the other designs?
 * Sadly, no.
 * "The waterline belt was intended to made from" To be?
 * "effectiveness of ship's torpedo protection system" The ship's?
 * "Construction was suspended shortly after the war began" Why?
 * Not specifically stated in the sources, but labour and materials shortages, I suspect.
 * Thanks for catching these. See if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:07, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * - can you take a look at these comments? I don't want to see this archived because you got distracted ;) Parsecboy (talk) 19:54, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Now would I do something that absent minded? Nevermind!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:07, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - looks good to me, few issues were left. FunkMonk (talk) 16:52, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 09:19, 13 May 2019 (UTC)