188:. Still, their construction was slightly contentious from a political standpoint, as Senator Benjamin Tillman thought that if battleship size was going to keep increasing (it was already up 50% between 1907 and 1912), they may as well build gigantic ships rather than continuing with small steps forward. As for the careers of the two ships,
411:
Nofi's going to be an essential reference for just about any of our interwar ships at this level. Not much on destroyers, but he's pretty good at tracking cruisers and above. One of these days we should go back and add information from it to
Arizona, although I'm not sure if there's really much that
764:
As a general point, it makes more sense to me to organize the article such that you start talking about the design process and the different technical requirements, and then to move to a description of the finalized design. Right now, you have that split with the construction and service history
171:
765:
sections in between. It seems rather disjointed to me to talk about the design process, then the service histories, and then jump back to "The
Pennsylvania-class ships were significantly larger than their predecessors, the Nevada class..."
119:
355:
664:
I organize my ship class articles a bit differently than others, nothing too crazy. I would prefer to keep the background section, as I believe that each article should be understandable on its own, and the
372:
Everything but the last two and possibly overlinking should be done. I do tend to link the items in the description again so that readers don't have to scroll elsewhere to find out what we're talking about.
806:
I toyed with that idea, but currently we have the specifications either at the beginning or the end of battleship article. Other than that, I don't have a specific objection to moving the section.
643:
For the sake of summary style, I would truncate or merge the
Background section into a couple of intro sentences in the Design since readers can read about the Nevada class in the class article
540:
213:, and I believe both are fine under Knowledge (XXG)'s guidelines. I thank you all in advance for your constructive criticism and comments that will improve the article.
90:
85:
94:
174:
since I've been at FAC alone, but I'm finally back with an article I have been writing in my sandbox over the past year. I think it's finally ready for the big show.
426:
I found it at the GPO for relatively cheap; I'll probably buy it when I have a little money saved up. Stillwell was pretty thorough, but it wouldn't hurt to check.
77:
199:
To forestall certain points that I'm sure will come up, I do know that I have an atypical citation style, including the references and images. I'm a big fan of
40:
398:
I'm in DC at the moment, but I'm still trying to get to trawling through the (very helpful) book you linked. I didn't find anything in my books on what
861:
831:
816:
788:
739:
730:
690:
659:
588:
579:
558:
548:
516:
503:
479:
470:
430:
421:
406:
391:
382:
I'm only willing to cater to the readers so much. Links in the infobox and on first use in the main body (including lede) are good enough for me.--
377:
367:
349:
289:
280:
217:
162:
56:
30:
17:
306:
The redlinks for armor-piercing projectiles and deck armor can be resolved by using Armor-piercing shot and shell and deck (ship) respectively.
135:
570:
File:USS_Pennsylvania_1925_SLV_Green.jpg: source link redirects to search page - possible to either include direct link or catalogue number?
842:
140:
81:
614:
Do you have a different citation to doublecheck the deck armor thickness? Arizona has the thickness as 5" (3" deck plus 2" splinter?)
718:"22.5 knots (41.7 km/h; 25.9 mph), and 23 knots (43 km/h; 26 mph), and 25 knots (46 km/h; 29 mph)" – the first "and" can be removed.
210:
207:
236:
536:
73:
66:
800:
I wanted to add more images as opposed to statistics, and placing images opposite the infobox creates a nasty sandwich.
271:
709:"Nevada-class battleships" probably doesn't need a link directly underneath "Main article: Nevada-class battleship".
647:
638:
417:
387:
363:
345:
182:
266:
532:
751:- "nothing of note" - you mean to tell me the last battleship surface engagement is "nothing of note"?
776:
575:
499:
466:
655:
784:
761:
the armor protection - the way you have it worded now makes it sound like the bunkers were armored.
835:
775:
You've got several duplicate links, particularly in the description section - I'd recommend using
857:
413:
383:
359:
341:
651:
340:
What was Pennsy used as a target for; gunfire, torpedoes, what? Inquiring minds want to know!--
181:
class marked no large leap forward in
American battleship technology; that was the preceding
726:
571:
495:
462:
834:
has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see
780:
544:
853:
813:
736:
687:
681:
680:
tomorrow—thank you for the thorough comparison, and my apologies for the late reply.
585:
555:
513:
485:
476:
427:
403:
374:
286:
214:
159:
53:
192:
did nothing of great note, but I assume most FAC reviewers will recognize the name "
331:
Overlinking on fiscal year, deck, dry dock and a bunch of terms in the description.
449:
EN1, 25, 27, 42: don't see a
References entry that would correspond to this source
111:
335:
323:
313:
849:
722:
623:
Armament is missing number of guns per turret - e.g. 4x3 14-inch/45 caliber guns
319:
Add horsepower to infobox installed power line. Missing "×" for three-inch guns.
629:
Similarly, Arizona's beam is cited at 97ft vs. 97 ft 6 in (29.72 m) (waterline)
285:
Ah, your eagle eyes are always appreciated. Both of these should be fixed now!
509:
245:
anti-torpedo bulges, which were standard additions on all ships in this period
686:
I've gone through and fixed the issues, using mostly
Friedman. Thanks again!
772:"now-infamous"? Shouldn't it be "now-famous"? Or perhaps just "well-known"?
712:"completed multiple studies of a 'maximum battleship'" – why single quotes?
206:, and this article follows that where it can; I've used a similar style
632:
Cruising range doesn't match, but its not cited in the
Arizona article.
475:
I still have to add
Campbell, but these are all otherwise addressed.
358:
on the interwar fleet exercises to see what the ships did in them.--
229:
I've made a couple of tweaks, hope you like them, if not its a wiki.
39:
Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in
626:
Arizona had the overall length only, which is probably sufficient.
200:
120:
Featured article candidates/Pennsylvania-class battleship/archive1
508:
Good lord, time to go back to elementary school and relearn my
735:
All of these should be addressed! Thank you for the review.
537:
Pennsylvania-class_battleship#Authorization and construction
757:"armor protection for the coal bunkers" - the coal bunkers
490:
Mostly done: alphabetization for
Campbell, presentation of
617:
Switch armor to greatest to least, from least to greatest.
539:
section, which I'll leave for whoever wants to tackle it.
145:
637:
I think service history should be the last section, see
676:
As for the infobox problems, I will check
Friedman and
673:
design. I've added a link to the standard type, though.
107:
103:
99:
59:
754:
Why did you chose to hide the infobox as the default?
312:Fix 12.5 inches to the proper hyphenated form, and
650:, which is only in the lead but not in the prose.
328:Watch for "the ship" and "her" in the description.
869:The above discussion is preserved as an archive.
605:I would switch the infobox to 'show' by default.
41:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured article candidates
43:. No further edits should be made to this page.
235:I suspect that the Caio Duilio link is wrong,
875:No further edits should be made to this page.
848: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
715:"about fifteen months after" – after what?
124:
669:innovations are key in understanding the
402:was used as a target for; still looking.
812:Duplicate links removed. Thanks Parsec!
797:fire any shots in that battle? Nope. ;-)
354:Strongly suggest that you trawl through
127:
117:
322:Shouldn't president be capitalized in
620:Conning tower does not match Arizona.
7:
608:Installed power missing horsepower.
452:Check alphabetization of References
24:
324:American president Woodrow Wilson
314:50 miles per hour (80 km/h) winds
803:Good catch, I've fixed that now.
721:Except for this, it looks good.
412:Stillwell's book didn't cover.--
237:Italian battleship Caio Duilio
1:
646:The important details are in
316:(add |adj=on to the template)
74:Pennsylvania-class battleship
67:Pennsylvania-class battleship
843:featured article candidates
554:Thank you very much, Dank.
31:featured article nomination
892:
660:15:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
589:19:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
580:19:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
559:03:42, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
549:15:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
517:19:17, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
504:19:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
480:09:56, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
471:17:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
431:03:42, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
422:18:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
407:18:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
392:18:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
378:09:56, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
368:23:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
350:01:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
290:00:22, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
281:11:25, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
218:22:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
163:22:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
458:EN20: why not use author?
872:Please do not modify it.
862:15:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
817:04:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
789:17:28, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
740:08:31, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
691:04:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
648:standard type battleship
239:is a more likely target.
57:10:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
36:Please do not modify it.
731:09:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
639:Kaiser-class battleship
461:Cates: doubled period.
253:all US surface warships
584:Ach, good catch—done.
543:are my edits. - Dank (
445:- spotchecks not done
259:would surprise me and
494:between EN11 and 18.
455:Compare ENs 18 and 11
777:User:Ucucha/duplinks
768:Why is the photo of
336:that nearly sunk the
533:standard disclaimer
484:Campbell is added.
793:Well yes, but did
611:complement uncited
535:, except for the
809:Good catch again.
512:. Thanks Nikki.
166:
153:
152:
883:
874:
847:
841:
838:, and leave the
492:Naval Engineers'
337:
325:
315:
278:
274:
269:
156:
125:
115:
97:
48:The article was
38:
891:
890:
886:
885:
884:
882:
881:
880:
879:
870:
845:
839:
779:to catch them.
334:Sank, not sunk
276:
272:
267:
263:I really doubt.
249:All Battleships
172:quite some time
88:
72:
70:
34:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
889:
887:
878:
877:
865:
864:
852:goes through.
824:
823:
822:
821:
820:
819:
810:
807:
804:
801:
798:
773:
766:
762:
755:
745:
744:
743:
742:
719:
716:
713:
710:
698:
697:
696:
695:
694:
693:
674:
644:
641:
635:
634:
633:
630:
627:
624:
621:
618:
615:
612:
609:
606:
594:
593:
592:
591:
562:
561:
526:
525:
524:
523:
522:
521:
520:
519:
482:
459:
456:
453:
450:
440:
439:
438:
437:
436:
435:
434:
433:
396:
395:
394:
352:
338:
332:
329:
326:
320:
317:
310:
307:
295:
294:
293:
292:
247:Are you sure?
241:
231:
230:
168:
167:
158:Nominator(s):
151:
150:
149:
148:
146:External links
143:
138:
130:
129:
123:
122:
69:
64:
63:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
888:
876:
873:
867:
866:
863:
859:
855:
851:
844:
837:
833:
829:
826:
825:
818:
815:
811:
808:
805:
802:
799:
796:
792:
791:
790:
786:
782:
778:
774:
771:
767:
763:
760:
756:
753:
752:
750:
747:
746:
741:
738:
734:
733:
732:
728:
724:
720:
717:
714:
711:
708:
707:
706:
705:
703:
692:
689:
685:
684:
683:
679:
675:
672:
668:
663:
662:
661:
657:
653:
649:
645:
642:
640:
636:
631:
628:
625:
622:
619:
616:
613:
610:
607:
604:
603:
601:
600:
599:
598:
590:
587:
583:
582:
581:
577:
573:
569:
568:
567:
566:
560:
557:
553:
552:
551:
550:
546:
542:
538:
534:
531:on prose per
530:
518:
515:
511:
507:
506:
505:
501:
497:
493:
489:
488:
487:
483:
481:
478:
474:
473:
472:
468:
464:
460:
457:
454:
451:
448:
447:
446:
444:
443:Source review
432:
429:
425:
424:
423:
419:
415:
414:Sturmvogel 66
410:
409:
408:
405:
401:
397:
393:
389:
385:
384:Sturmvogel 66
381:
380:
379:
376:
371:
370:
369:
365:
361:
360:Sturmvogel 66
357:
353:
351:
347:
343:
342:Sturmvogel 66
339:
333:
330:
327:
321:
318:
311:
309:Link fuel oil
308:
305:
304:
303:
302:
301:
291:
288:
284:
283:
282:
279:
275:
270:
264:
262:
258:
254:
250:
246:
242:
240:
238:
233:
232:
228:
226:
222:
221:
220:
219:
216:
212:
209:
205:
203:
197:
195:
191:
187:
185:
180:
177:The two-ship
175:
173:
165:
164:
161:
155:
154:
147:
144:
142:
139:
137:
134:
133:
132:
131:
126:
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:
871:
868:
828:Closing note
827:
795:Pennsylvania
794:
770:Pennsylvania
769:
758:
748:
701:
700:
699:
677:
671:Pennsylvania
670:
666:
596:
595:
565:Image review
564:
563:
545:push to talk
528:
527:
491:
442:
441:
399:
299:
297:
296:
265:
260:
257:all warships
256:
252:
248:
244:
243:
234:
224:
223:
201:
198:
193:
190:Pennsylvania
189:
183:
179:Pennsylvania
178:
176:
169:
157:
141:Citation bot
71:
49:
47:
35:
28:
572:Nikkimaria
496:Nikkimaria
463:Nikkimaria
251:, perhaps
170:It's been
836:WP:FAC/ar
832:candidate
781:Parsecboy
602:Infobox:
261:all ships
854:Ian Rose
830:: This
749:Comments
702:Comments
678:Conway's
597:Comments
300:Comments
298:Support
277:Chequers
136:Analysis
54:Ian Rose
50:promoted
704:Support
529:Support
227:Support
202:Chicago
194:Arizona
128:Toolbox
91:protect
86:history
723:Inkbug
667:Nevada
400:Pennsy
255:, but
211:before
184:Nevada
95:delete
541:These
273:Spiel
225:Query
208:twice
204:style
186:class
112:views
104:watch
100:links
16:<
858:talk
785:talk
759:were
727:talk
656:talk
652:Kirk
576:talk
510:ABCs
500:talk
467:talk
418:talk
388:talk
364:talk
356:book
346:talk
268:Ϣere
108:logs
82:talk
78:edit
850:bot
196:".
52:by
860:)
846:}}
840:{{
814:Ed
787:)
737:Ed
729:)
688:Ed
682:Ed
658:)
586:Ed
578:)
556:Ed
547:)
514:Ed
502:)
486:Ed
477:Ed
469:)
428:Ed
420:)
404:Ed
390:)
375:Ed
366:)
348:)
287:Ed
215:Ed
160:Ed
110:|
106:|
102:|
98:|
93:|
89:|
84:|
80:|
61:.
33:.
856:(
783:(
725:(
654:(
574:(
498:(
465:(
416:(
386:(
362:(
344:(
114:)
76:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.