Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/List of battlecruisers of the Royal Navy

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Promoted EyeSerenetalk 07:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of battlecruisers of the Royal Navy[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)
Toolbox

I'm still not real comfortable with lists and would like opinions regarding the amount of detail in the lede and in the class paragraphs. Are they appropriate; if not what needs to be added or deleted? Does the lede cover everything that it needs to? Thanks in advance.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment Support I think the lede is ok apart from the definition of battlecruiser could be added into the text instead of as a note which at the beginning of the article does not look right. The sections I understand are just supposed to be summary's but the length depends on what they did during their service. To keep them all more or less the same size perhaps a bit more for the Queen Mary class. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technical stuff
    • Fixed one dab link so all good there, and no external link issues.
    • No images have alt text, but all appear appropriately licenced. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - I'll mostly address prose and refs, since lists aren't my thing either.
    • In the section on Invincibles, The two surviving ships had an uneventful time for the rest of the war conducting patrols of the North Sea.... "had an uneventful time" sounds a wee bit on the informal side to me.
    • In the Indefatigable section, it says that the former "blew up". I think we can be a bit more specific than that. It's not like the ship just spontaneously exploded. The German battlecruisers hit her quite a few times. I'd add something mentioning which ships sank her (since we know for sure. I'd check w/ parsec about that one)
  • Cam (Chat)(Prof) 22:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Looks pretty good to me, but I think the lead is too long. It looks like six paragraphs, but per WP:MOSLEAD, it can only be a maximum of four. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: my concern has been addressed. AustralianRupert (talk) 16:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - looks good, I like the length and coverage of the lead. Some food for thought:
    • That is one ugly template at the lead, and I think a picture would do better. Is there any way to convert that into a 'normal' template that goes at the bottom?
      • Maybe, lemme look into it.
    • Links for Tiger and Hood in the lead?
      • Added.
    • Do we need the bolded names in every section?
      • Removed, thanks to Dank.
    • Should it be renamed to "List of battlecruisers of the United Kingdom" to be consistent with "List of battlecruisers of Germany", etc.?
      • I don't think so since the navy and government names remain the same. Germany and Russia both had different names and lists could be legitimately made for x of the Soviet Navy vs. x of the Imperial Russian Navy while leaving the more comprehensive x of Russia
    • Anything on Hoods inter-war activities? The 1929 refit would probably be worth mentioning, at least. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, sure, I've got a daily record of her activities. Not really sure the refit is the most significant thing though. Let me think on it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comments:
    • "they were least successful against enemy battleships" - all three British BCs were destroyed by their German counterparts, not BBs.
      • Quite right; I've rewritten that bit
    • The following sentence about cordite handling/etc. seems to come out of nowhere and doesn't flow logically from the previous sentence.
      • I'm not sure that I follow, but see how it flows now that I've clarified things a little bit.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "rated as battlecruisers only in reference to the more" - maybe "comparison" instead of "reference"
      • Already done by one of my many helpful copyeditors.
    • "The three Courageous-class ships were converted to aircraft carriers during the 1920s and only Repulse, Renown and Hood served in the Second World War" - this makes it sound as though the Courageouses were withdrawn from service before WWII.
      • Fixed.
    • Link "war in the Pacific" to Pacific War
      • Already done for me.
    • Any way to beef up the Invincible class and Queen Mary sections? They look rather short and sad compared to the other sections. One suggestion for QM is to spell out some of the differences between her and her half-sisters of the Lion class. All that's apparent right now is the slightly greater displacement.
    • I don't know if it's just me, but the bottom line of the box for the Indefatigables isn't showing up.
      • I know, I can't figure out how to fix it.
    • You have a mix of the ship name by itself and "the" ship name (the one I noticed was "the Princess Royal) - this should be consistent.
      • I caught a couple more.
    • There are a couple of very long paras that could be split, the second paras in the Lion and Renown class sections are the worst.
      • Done.
  • The article is in pretty good shape all-around, I'm just nitpicking to help ensure the article is up to snuff for FLC. Parsecboy (talk) 11:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support per usual disclaimer. I'm almost finished copyediting. Other than the things that Sturm mentions he's thinking about, it appears to me he's fielded the comments from Parsecboy and Ed, except that I agree with Parsecboy about the "cordite" sentence. But I'm not experienced with WP:FLC, we'll see how it goes. Per this screenshot (courtesy of User:John), AWB automatically checks for duplicate links ... that would be a lot easier than checking them by hand as I've been doing, so I'm not checking duplicate links any more. If someone could get these before these articles get to FAC, the noms would probably shower you with barnstars. - Dank (push to talk) 13:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/List_of_battlecruisers_of_the_Royal_Navy&oldid=1217235930"