Knowledge (XXG)

:Featured article candidates/South Carolina-class battleship/archive1 - Knowledge (XXG)

Source đź“ť

183:) were the impetus for some of the class' many innovations, but they also led to their uselessness during the First World War—their comparatively slow speed limited them to convoy escorting and home defense, the tasks also assigned to completely obsolete battleships from years before. Their ignominious careers were ended alongside dozens of other warships by the 498:"it provoked enough thought that Proceedings published comments on the story from Captain W.M. Folger, Professor P.R. Alger and David W. Taylor, the former the foremost gunnery expert in the Navy, the latter an up-and-coming officer and future chief constructor." -- you've got three names and two descriptions. I'm not sure who is who here. 473:
Also, it might be worthwhile to introduce HMS Dreadnought in the text, rather than in the quote box. I for one frequently skip over such things and it seemed rather jarring to have Dreadnought mentioned in the text with no introduction or explanation for why we should care about some random ship and
562:
I've been far busier recently than I expected to be, and the holiday shenanigans haven't helped. If I haven't gotten back to this by Sunday, please archive it—I can always renominate it in the future after addressing the excellent points above. Thank you all for your patience.
284:
I could have sworn that I'd responded to a peer review that you started for this article. Only had time to comment on the first couple of sections, but I don't recall any response, so I didn't pursue it. I couldn't find any peer review, but maybe I'm just imagining
124: 119: 308:
My impression is that my comments there haven't been incorporated into the article, but I could be wrong. Let me know if that's correct or not and I'll work some more on it. BTW, fix any redlinks if they're typos rather than genuine missing
463:
Keep an eye on ENGVAR - the convert template for the 11-inch guns Poundstone proposed produces "millimetres" for instance. And the tonnage conversion for said design should be rendered as "metric tons", rather than
251:
I've been waiting for other responses to fix all issues at once, but ... that hasn't happened yet. I'll fix these in the next couple days, whether there are more comments or not. Thanks, Nikki.
355: 90: 85: 94: 77: 572:
Okay, tks Ed. I think we've reached that point now, so I'll archive and hope to see it back at some later date once the extant comments are actioned. Cheers,
40: 637: 590: 581: 567: 557: 542: 520: 486: 442: 363: 339: 318: 303: 294: 268: 255: 246: 204: 167: 56: 140: 607: 30: 17: 396:
Stick with either inches or pound when describing armor thicknesses; don't mix them together. That will allow you to get rid of one note as well.
179:
fielded by the United States Navy. Congressionally-mandated weight restrictions (some two to three thousand tons less than the earlier British
618: 81: 508:
Maybe a line or two about why the Treaty of Washington required the major sea powers to scrap capital ships would be useful to the reader.
145: 501:
Is USS Possible ever going to be an article? I'm all for redlinks where future expansion is likely, but the article suggests that
415:
The propeller blade required 1000 hp more to rotate at the same speed, or did it cause the relevant engine's output to increase?
73: 66: 200:, where I made the same style choices (including the collapsed infobox). My thanks in advance for all constructive criticism. 548:
Yeah, I'm not sure where Ed is or when he's due back; if not this weekend, say, we'll probably have to archive... Cheers,
191: 264:
and probably a few others. Not sure what you mean by alphabetization and formatting? Poundstone added. Thanks, Nikki.
477:
Why is the citation for the quote in the service history section a parenthetical reference rather than a footnote?
378:
What do you mean by standard in the displacement entry? Washington Treaty definition? Or some other US standard?
438: 314: 290: 184: 351: 538: 242: 516: 482: 611: 299:
I think I asked you via email and you went through a small part of it. It was awhile ago, though.
633: 577: 553: 434: 310: 286: 387:
Coal capacity really isn't of much interest to a casual reader; I relegate it to the main body.
260:
Doublechecking the infobox. (Washington, DC) is there because it can be confused with at least
261: 413:
damaged propeller blade made the starboard engine run at 1,000 horsepower more than the other
534: 238: 610:
has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see
512: 478: 359: 335: 629: 587: 573: 564: 549: 530: 460:"final determinant in a naval battleship" - as opposed to what, an aerial battleship? 300: 265: 252: 201: 164: 53: 111: 418: 412: 405: 399: 625: 176: 408:
Seems kinda redundant, n'est-ce pas? Doesn't completed mean "in all respects"?
197: 384:
Fix the damn red link in Propulsion and add the boilers to that entry.
470:
Link HMS Dreadnought in the text (as opposed to just the quote box).
125:
Featured article candidates/South Carolina-class battleship/archive2
120:
Featured article candidates/South Carolina-class battleship/archive1
39:
Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in
216:
Draft differs between text and infobox, as do conversions for range
511:
That's all I have. Nice article, I look forward to supporting. --
467:
I believe the lead image should be set to 300px rather than 400.
454:
Agree with Sturm - I don't care much for the collapsed infobox.
231:
Be consistent in whether you include locations for periodicals
457:"a striking power only slightly heavier..." - drop the "only" 393:
Add a space after barbettes to match the other armor entries.
150: 400:
slightly more than the next three battleship classes had
107: 103: 99: 59: 381:
How about some rounding in the beam and draft entries?
433:
How about ISSNs for the journals where available?--
645:The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 344:"20th century", "twentieth century": consistency 41:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured article candidates 533:. I think reviewers are waitng for responses. 43:. No further edits should be made to this page. 651:No further edits should be made to this page. 624:template in place on the talk page until the 29:The following is an archived discussion of a 8: 18:Knowledge (XXG):Featured article candidates 375:Really, really hate the collapsed infobox. 129: 219:Check alphabetization of journal articles 132: 117: 175:These "epoch" warships were the first 7: 406:, and were completed in all respects 474:the speed at which she could steam. 402:The last word is unnecessary, IMO. 334:"began to believe": year? - Dank ( 24: 419:placed into the US Atlantic Fleet 505:was just a design, never a shop. 74:South Carolina-class battleship 67:South Carolina-class battleship 1: 638:22:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC) 591:05:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC) 582:22:26, 29 December 2013 (UTC) 568:05:23, 28 December 2013 (UTC) 558:04:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC) 543:17:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC) 521:13:31, 17 December 2013 (UTC) 487:21:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC) 443:00:14, 10 December 2013 (UTC) 364:04:22, 30 November 2013 (UTC) 340:17:04, 29 November 2013 (UTC) 319:15:55, 22 November 2013 (UTC) 304:05:03, 22 November 2013 (UTC) 295:22:15, 17 November 2013 (UTC) 269:06:37, 28 November 2013 (UTC) 256:05:03, 22 November 2013 (UTC) 247:19:52, 11 November 2013 (UTC) 228:Washington: should specify DC 205:03:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC) 168:03:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC) 57:10:02, 31 December 2013 (UTC) 586:Thanks, Ian. It'll be back. 430:Fix the link for deck armor. 421:How about simply "assigned"? 237:No citations to Poundstone. 619:featured article candidates 190:This is my first FAC since 31:featured article nomination 668: 424:When was the naval review? 222:FN1, 21: title formatting 648:Please do not modify it. 36:Please do not modify it. 185:Washington Naval Treaty 358:are my edits. - Dank ( 212:- spotchecks not done 493:Comments by Coemgenus 225:FN16: capitalization 427:Link light cruiser. 411:This is confusing: 352:standard disclaimer 262:The Navy (London) 171: 158: 157: 659: 650: 623: 617: 614:, and leave the 420: 414: 407: 401: 234:FN23: formatting 161: 130: 115: 97: 48:The article was 38: 667: 666: 662: 661: 660: 658: 657: 656: 655: 646: 621: 615: 495: 88: 72: 70: 34: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 665: 663: 654: 653: 641: 640: 628:goes through. 600: 599: 598: 597: 596: 595: 594: 593: 524: 523: 509: 506: 499: 494: 491: 490: 489: 475: 471: 468: 465: 461: 458: 455: 446: 445: 431: 428: 425: 422: 416: 409: 403: 397: 394: 391: 390:Enlisted what? 388: 385: 382: 379: 376: 367: 366: 345: 342: 326: 325: 324: 323: 322: 321: 276: 275: 274: 273: 272: 271: 235: 232: 229: 226: 223: 220: 217: 173: 172: 163:Nominator(s): 156: 155: 154: 153: 151:External links 148: 143: 135: 134: 128: 127: 122: 69: 64: 63: 46: 45: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 664: 652: 649: 643: 642: 639: 635: 631: 627: 620: 613: 609: 605: 602: 601: 592: 589: 585: 584: 583: 579: 575: 571: 570: 569: 566: 561: 560: 559: 555: 551: 547: 546: 545: 544: 540: 536: 532: 531:User:The ed17 528: 522: 518: 514: 510: 507: 504: 500: 497: 496: 492: 488: 484: 480: 476: 472: 469: 466: 462: 459: 456: 453: 452: 451: 450: 444: 440: 436: 435:Sturmvogel 66 432: 429: 426: 423: 417: 410: 404: 398: 395: 392: 389: 386: 383: 380: 377: 374: 373: 372: 371: 365: 361: 357: 353: 350:on prose per 349: 346: 343: 341: 337: 333: 332: 331: 330: 320: 316: 312: 311:Sturmvogel 66 307: 306: 305: 302: 298: 297: 296: 292: 288: 287:Sturmvogel 66 283: 282: 281: 280: 270: 267: 263: 259: 258: 257: 254: 250: 249: 248: 244: 240: 236: 233: 230: 227: 224: 221: 218: 215: 214: 213: 211: 210:Source review 207: 206: 203: 199: 196: 194: 188: 186: 182: 178: 170: 169: 166: 160: 159: 152: 149: 147: 144: 142: 139: 138: 137: 136: 131: 126: 123: 121: 118: 116: 113: 109: 105: 101: 96: 92: 87: 83: 79: 75: 68: 65: 62: 60: 58: 55: 51: 44: 42: 37: 32: 27: 26: 19: 647: 644: 604:Closing note 603: 526: 525: 502: 448: 447: 369: 368: 360:push to talk 347: 336:push to talk 328: 327: 278: 277: 209: 208: 193:Pennsylvania 192: 189: 180: 177:dreadnoughts 174: 162: 146:Citation bot 71: 50:not promoted 49: 47: 35: 28: 535:Graham Colm 309:articles.-- 181:Dreadnought 239:Nikkimaria 198:battleship 612:WP:FAC/ar 608:candidate 513:Coemgenus 479:Parsecboy 464:"tonnes". 285:things.-- 630:Ian Rose 606:: This 574:Ian Rose 550:Ian Rose 503:Possible 449:Comments 370:Comments 329:Comments 279:Comments 141:Analysis 54:Ian Rose 527:Comment 348:Support 133:Toolbox 91:protect 86:history 195:-class 95:delete 356:These 112:views 104:watch 100:links 16:< 634:talk 578:talk 554:talk 539:talk 517:talk 483:talk 439:talk 315:talk 291:talk 243:talk 108:logs 82:talk 78:edit 626:bot 52:by 636:) 622:}} 616:{{ 588:Ed 580:) 565:Ed 556:) 541:) 519:) 485:) 441:) 362:) 354:. 338:) 317:) 301:Ed 293:) 266:Ed 253:Ed 245:) 202:Ed 187:. 165:Ed 110:| 106:| 102:| 98:| 93:| 89:| 84:| 80:| 61:. 33:. 632:( 576:( 552:( 537:( 529:@ 515:( 481:( 437:( 313:( 289:( 241:( 114:) 76:(

Index

Knowledge (XXG):Featured article candidates
featured article nomination
Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured article candidates
Ian Rose
10:02, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

South Carolina-class battleship
South Carolina-class battleship
edit
talk
history
protect
delete
links
watch
logs
views
Featured article candidates/South Carolina-class battleship/archive1
Featured article candidates/South Carolina-class battleship/archive2
Analysis
Citation bot
External links
Ed
03:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
dreadnoughts
Washington Naval Treaty
Pennsylvania-class
battleship
Ed
03:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

↑