Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Lexington-class battlecruiser


 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lexington class battlecruiser

 * Passed --Eurocopter (talk) 12:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I've been working on this for 2-3 weeks, and I've greatly expanded it along with adding references. I'd like helpful hints for a potential FAC in late January/early February. I won't be on every day after this Thursday due to me going home and not having unlimited internet access (D), but I will get on often enough to fix any content issues while La Pianista will handle any prose issues. Thanks and cheers everyone! — Ed   17  (Talk /  Contribs)  21:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I gladly co-nominate. Article has very few, if any, prose issues - so finding any will be a task. :) &mdash;  La Pianista  (T•C•S) 00:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * A note for anyone else who wanders here: Allanon = Ed 17, but Allanon is my alt. account, which I am using while I am at home because of insecure internet connections.  Allanon   ♠The Dark Druid♠ 09:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments Support
 * The first thing that struck me is that the lead is pretty short; take a look at Montana class battleship, an FA on an uncompleted capital ship class for an example of how to expand this article's lead.
 * ...will work on.
 * As far as this source is concerned, what qualifies it as a reliable source?
 * Well, I don't think that it is reliable per WP:RS, but I'm citing really uncontroversial info (the date they were laid down). If you guys want me to remove it, I'll revert back to just the month and year - (not a specific day).
 * I wouldn't trust that source. It gets the fate of the Lexington and Saratoga wrong; USS Langley (CV-1) was "CV-01"; Lexington was CV-2. If it can't even get basic information right, why should it have the dates right? – Joe Nu  tter  22:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I went hunting after I saw this (which was about 45 min. ago =/), and I felt stupid when I realized that my big bad Conway's book gave these dates. Almost grounds for a trouting... -_-  Allanon   ♠The Dark Druid♠ 08:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm not sure I like the photo of Guam at the bottom of the article, mainly because it's jutting into the notes and references sections.
 * I'm working on it...for the moment I'll leave it in because I have to expand the notes section (I think) -- the aim is to have it in just the see also and notes sections. For what I am trying to do, see Alaska-class battlecruiser towards the bottom
 * Other than that, everything looks pretty good. I made a couple of tweaks, but nothing too major. Parsecboy (talk) 05:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments This is an excellent article; I've got a few comments to make below:
 *  Comments Support
 * The infobox does seem a little spartan compared to other A-class and FAs of ship classes (even the incomplete Montana class given by Parsecboy above) specifically in the class overview section. Try to fill in the fields that you can after look at the Montana class BB article. -MBK004 05:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the poke. :) I'm working on it (slowly...)! — Ed   17  (Talk /  Contribs)  16:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Having gone through the article again, I can see nothing that precludes me from supporting this article. -MBK004 05:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * 'Design' section - this has me pondering. Perhaps dividing the section into 'Design' and 'Development' to break it up and make it easier for the reader?
 * Breaking it where? 'Genesis' => 'Design' and the other two third-level sections => 'Development'?
 * 'Even as early as 1912, the U.S. Navy (USN) had thought of constructing new battlecruisers to combat the four new Kongō-class battlecruisers that the Imperial Japanese Navy were producing' - Why is 1912 significant? What happened then? Why was it not considered earlier than 1912?
 * That's a good question. Morison doesn't say anthing more than that though...
 * 'In 1903 the General Board assumed that the U.S. would build two battleships per year, but Congress had other ideas' - that last bit needs to be rewritten, it's a tad novel-ish
 * , I think.
 * 'and the USN began to expand greatly with all types of ships in 1916' - This is a bit awkward for me to read. I know what you mean, but rewording slightly would be a good idea
 * , I think.
 * 'However, the ships were not laid down right away, as capital ship construction had been suspended to facilitate construction of needed merchant ships and ASW destroyers.' - Can you spell out what ASW stands for? In fact, you do so later on, so swap them around - wikilink 'ani-submarine warfare' first, then just use a non-linked 'ASW'
 * 'However, in 1917, the class came on hold' - 'was placed on hold' or 'delayed'
 * 'The Lexington-class were still on hold in 1918' - Nothing wrong with this sentence, but the picture underneath it is bleeding through to the text
 * I can't see it on this old 640 x whatever computer...could anyone else fix it? =/
 * '(two triple superfiring over two double turrets)' - I honestly have no idea what that means - can it be clarified?
 * I honestly have no time to create an article on tha right now with my mom limiting my time, but I will create one as soon as I can.
 * Can you integrate the 'See Also' section into the text to get rid of it?
 * I think that you reviewers hate "See also" sections... :)
 * Can you integrate the 'See Also' section into the text to get rid of it?
 * I think that you reviewers hate "See also" sections... :)

And can I be cheeky and ask you to review Tetrarch (tank) in return when you get a chance? It's just above this review. Cheers, Skinny87 (talk) 18:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Support
 * "many contemporary historians classify them as battlecruisers' This sentence is slightly ambiguous, contemporary is generally used to mean "of the time period" but the present tense is used, making it unclear if contemporary means this, primary, definition or the secondary definition of "modern".
 * The two images after the infobox sandwich on my laptop monitor, while I am no expert on image policies I believe this is bad.
 * ... On my laptop and this old cluncker that I have to use now, they aren't sandwiched...
 * Well, in FF on mine it does. The painting of the original configuration has the bottom at "Other changes" while the definitive design painting has the top at the beginning of that paragraph.
 * Call me a liar, but my laptop did have a sandwich.
 * "The solution for this was "very unusual";" Might a colon be better than a semicolon here? It would read better.
 * To answer your question: yes, it would be better. :)
 * " the opportunity to redesign the ships was not missed." Passive voice should be avoided when possible, who didn't miss the opportunity? Naval architects? Congress?
 * Better? "was not allowed to pass" - I don't know who didn't allow it to pass, but I'm just trying for a transtion here (sort of...)
 * The paragraph about the Hood is bad; it mentions that exposure to plans for the Hood caused the redesign, mentions various changes, and then goes back to talking about the Hood. The reader thinks that all the changes were caused by exposure to Hood plans, and then is told that not all of them were.
 * Is the para better now? I did a quick run-through...(hope it wasn't too quick...)
 * Yeah, that's better.
 * "According to Bonner," Who is Bonner? Explain this.
 * The reference/in-line citation...?
 * I suppose, but just using the last name makes it seem like you're mentioning someone previously referenced in the article. You could at least say Kermit Bonner or something.
 * ✅ (will address now)
 * Any chance of including how much complete the Constitution was, to be consistent with the others?
 * The See Also section can be integrated: You linked to G3 earlier discussing the Washington Treaty, Admiral Class can be mentioned when discussing the Hood (HMS Hood, an Admiral class battlecruiser) and Lexington Class Aircraft Carrier can be linked to when discussing the fate of the Lexington and Saratoga."
 * The See Also section can be integrated: You linked to G3 earlier discussing the Washington Treaty, Admiral Class can be mentioned when discussing the Hood (HMS Hood, an Admiral class battlecruiser) and Lexington Class Aircraft Carrier can be linked to when discussing the fate of the Lexington and Saratoga."
 * The See Also section can be integrated: You linked to G3 earlier discussing the Washington Treaty, Admiral Class can be mentioned when discussing the Hood (HMS Hood, an Admiral class battlecruiser) and Lexington Class Aircraft Carrier can be linked to when discussing the fate of the Lexington and Saratoga."

Please fix these and what was mentioned above and I'll support it. – Joe Nu  tter  00:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment
 * I would be much happier if the article didn't refer to the Alaska class as battlecruisers. Particularly as this causes confusing statements like "Succeeded by: Alaska class battlecruiser" - there is simply no sense in which the Alaskas succeeded the Lexingtons.
 * I fixed the caption on the Guam image, but otherwise they all have the little explanatory "modern historians..."
 * Yep. But that's not very helpful. The problem isn't the terminology, it's the fact that it's mentioned so often that it will lead people to create a falsse association between the two classes, which werre nothing to do with one another.
 * As I mentioned "Succeeded by: Alaska class battlecruiser" is a totally untrue statement. At very least, we should take that out. I would also prefer "first and last class of battlecruiser" ordered by the USN. The Alaskas were certainly not ordered as battlecruisers. In my view mention of the Alaskas should be confined to footnote A2. The Land (talk) 18:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Apologies, the 'succeeded by' appears already to have been removed. I have changed the article to something I'm happier with for the time being. The Land (talk) 18:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * :P I did that. :) Early in their design, the Alaskas were intended to be battlecruisers, though. But I doubt that this matters, and I will start to try to shove the class into a note(s). Cheers!  Allanon   ♠The Dark Druid♠ 18:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Otherwise, I broadly concur with the other comments, and would be happy to support if they were fixed. The Land (talk) 14:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments everyone! I have to go soon or now, but I will get to these as soon as I can...  Allanon   ♠The Dark Druid♠ 20:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've replied to all of them now; they are interspersed above. Thanks again and cheers!  Allanon   ♠The Dark Druid♠ 17:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment Support Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "they were originally designed mount ten"
 * "making them was the only other battlecruisers ever built by the U.S."
 * "and would designated as CC-1 through CC-6"
 * "after an almost 5-month delay"
 * "every U.S. battleship that was built in the prior to the Washington Naval Treaty"
 * All fixed or removed. Thanks!  Allanon   ♠The Dark Druid♠ 07:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.