767:
Okay I see it. The problem is that the US Navy template is long, and sits above the next image, which sits above the next table; pushing the template down makes thing look wrong further down, in a variety of font sizes. I haven't done a formal survey, but anecdotally, most people have smaller screens
633:
OK, I've reworded this to a simpler statement that they never left
Bayonne until they were scrapped, which is easier to verify. Effectively, they're in reserve/decommissioned once they get there, but the Navy doesn't formally do that for another year or two; very aggravating as I can't simply just
178:
I am a little hesitant to nominate this list after the warm reception that List of battleships of Greece received, but I welcome discussion as to if this is really a stand-alone list or if it has sufficient items to qualify for FLC's unwritten length criteria or if it's really an article in list
401:
This isn't the venue for another 3b/minimum items discussion. As was said beforehand, it entirely depends on the list/article in question. This is just about sufficient to be a "list" as opposed to an article with a couple of tables in it, so it's fine to be here. I'll comment accordingly.
248:
To get the major comment out of the way, as a critic of the Greece list, I think this one has enough entries to justify having a list. It's much closer to the other similar lists in terms of number of entries than the Greece one, and I have no 3b concerns myself.
117:
670:- I've made a couple of small tweaks to the list; please check to make sure I haven't inadvertently changed any meanings. Overall a very nice little list, no concerns in my mind with regard to criteria 3.b. One minor comment, that does not change my support:
436:
I've modified it with a picture; intended to be above the navbox, but they're both fighting for the top right spot. Anybody know how to modify the code appropriately? I'm not fond of this idea because it breaks consistency with all of the other US ship
747:
Thanks. Okay, you're not talking about the space to the right of "Key", right? Is it vertical space between the first and second paragraph? In
Firefox on a 13" laptop, I have to drop down to a microscopic font to get that. - Dank
88:
83:
92:
705:
Nope, no duplication. Look more closely, one is
Friedman's carrier book and the other is the cruiser book. Much the same with two different volumes of Conways. Thanks for the fixes and the review.--
768:
and/or use a bigger font than you're using, Ed, and any larger font size makes that little bit of white space disappear. Do you have anything that solves all the problems at the same time? - Dank (
75:
316:
I don't know why I didn't catch this at the ACR, but right now, the lead implies that the
Japanese had battlecruisers at Tsushima; they used armored cruisers as the fast wing of the battle line.
489:
For some reason WP:SHIPS has ignored grammatically correct
English and not hyphenated ship class articles. They're a compound adjective modifying the word "class", which requires a hyphen.--
505:"to pack an offensive punch " not encyclopaedic at all, more like a tabloid newspaper review of materiel. Unless it's a quote, in which case it should be in quote marks with a direct ref.
191:
with a paragraph or two explaining the class history and the notable activities of the ships. I believe that it meets all the FL criteria as given. This is a co-nomination with
133:
778:
I despecified the Alaska picture size, which helps a little bit, but I'm not sure what to do unless we can somehow get some of the lede to fill in to the right of the key.--
79:
695:
The changes look great, thanks for your support! I generally defer to Sturm on anything in the end-sections, although I'm wondering the same thing as you. - Dank (
787:
773:
762:
753:
742:
714:
700:
687:
628:
611:
573:
547:
528:
513:
498:
456:
446:
431:
421:
391:
366:
348:
338:
297:
283:
261:
239:
219:
208:
165:
451:
That navbox doesn't want to play nice. I've changed the paragraph break and anchored it to the next paragraph down; that fixes the whitespace problem. - Dank (
288:
Good catch; she was sold for scrap in 59, but the actual process began the following year. I've rewritten that bit to clarify that it refers to the sale date.--
71:
64:
40:
269:
One other thing, from Alaska-class: "and she was scrapped with her sisters in 1960 and 1961." The table says the Hawaii was scrapped in 1959, not 1960.
184:
138:
599:
had spent 32 months in service. Couldn't easily find that in the ref. Suggest you show the reader how you came to that conclusion in a footnote.
557:
Tables aren't sortable so no need for over linking things like "scrap". (especially since you don't link scrap at all in the next table......)
30:
17:
326:
s were decommissioned two years after the end of WWII, not a vague "several years later" (which implies a longer duration, at least to me).
650:
728:
as it meets all the criteria, but the gigantic whitespace caused by the U.S. Navy ship types box is really distracting (see where the
188:
319:
Maybe worth spelling out that the WNT was an arms limitation treaty - this is clear to us, but probably not to the average reader.
479:
607:
387:
252:
Glad to hear it. But I think that a minimum size ought to be specified to avoid any further incidents like that.--
214:
I jumped in at the A-class review to help with language and organization, and I'm happy to help here too. - Dank (
623:. I also didn't field the "navbox in the lead" point. I think I got the rest of them. Thanks much, TRM. - Dank (
405:
I really dislike that navbox in the lead, and would by far prefer an image one of the battlecruisers, it would
329:
Is the "Found using Google
Scholar" thing really necessary on the last entry in the further reading section?
783:
710:
646:
543:
494:
442:
417:
293:
257:
204:
161:
638:
354:
683:
603:
383:
53:
732:
277:
523:"So when Congress authorized a large naval building program in 1916", 1.5 paragraphs above. - Dank (
475:"The Navy subsequently..." reinforce US Navy since the last "Navy" you mentioned was the Royal one.
362:
334:
758:
It's between the second and third paragraphs. I've sent you and Sturm a screenshot via email. :-)
779:
706:
642:
561:" They were known, both popularly and by historians, as..." perhaps to avoid the "known" repeat?
539:
520:"as part of the massive 1916 building program" what is this? Did you mention it/link it before?
490:
438:
413:
289:
253:
200:
157:
180:
674:
Why are there a couple of works duplicated between the
References and Further reading sections?
679:
271:
568:. I'll leave the rest for Sturm when he gets back. Thanks much for the review! - Dank (
409:
help engage readers who perhaps aren't even sure what a battlecruiser is or looks like.
353:
Looks good to me. I fixed the lead photo/navbox problem, and added a "see-also" link to
769:
749:
696:
624:
620:
587:
569:
524:
509:
452:
427:
358:
344:
330:
235:
215:
196:
170:
759:
739:
109:
118:
Featured list candidates/List of battlecruisers of the United States/archive1
192:
535:
Would link "long ton" the first time round since it's uncommon these days.
472:"of an armaments limitation treaty" not significant enough for an article?
426:
Would it be possible to have some sort of image above the navbox? - Dank (
486:
battlecruisers", I would suggest consistency within the MILHIST project.
228:– First off, great to see Dank helping out at an FLC. Welcome aboard!
39:
Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in
678:
Other than this, everything looks great, so I'm happy to support.
560:"They were popularly known, and known by historians, as " -: -->
580:
Ref 13, isn't the publisher NH&HC like the preceding refs?
565:
412:
The navbox is common to all of the national ship lists.--
143:
105:
101:
97:
57:
595:
I looked at ref 23 which was supposed to tell me that
554:
Is "cancelled" USEng? I thought it was "canceled"?
469:"battlecruiser" is quickly over linked in the lead.
803:The above discussion is preserved as an archive.
564:Did these four, except "cancelled", which is in
43:. No further edits should be made to this page.
809:No further edits should be made to this page.
41:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured list candidates
29:The following is an archived discussion of a
8:
508:Did the above, except the navbox. - Dank (
72:List of battlecruisers of the United States
65:List of battlecruisers of the United States
377:
122:
619:Sturm, Nick agrees with this; please see
343:All done. Thanks for the review! - Dank (
179:disguise. In format it matches the other
380:
185:List of battlecruisers of the Royal Navy
18:Knowledge (XXG):Featured list candidates
125:
115:
634:say that they were placed in reserve.
7:
24:
189:List of battlecruisers of Germany
621:User talk:Dank#RfA observation
1:
826:
788:20:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
774:20:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
763:19:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
754:09:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
743:09:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
715:20:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
701:16:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
688:15:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
612:20:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
574:21:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
529:20:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
514:20:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
480:KongĹŤ class battlecruiser
392:17:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
349:21:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
339:18:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
298:02:38, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
284:01:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
262:02:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
240:02:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
220:13:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
209:02:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
166:02:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
806:Please do not modify it.
629:01:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
586:Done these two. - Dank (
548:22:38, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
499:22:38, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
457:23:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
447:00:34, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
432:23:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
422:22:38, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
367:03:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
36:Please do not modify it.
31:featured list nomination
382:Resolved comments from
322:Maybe specify that the
478:Our article is called
355:List of battlecruisers
56:17:35, 1 August 2012
665:
664:
655:
641:comment added by
583:Same for ref 15.
174:
151:
150:
817:
808:
737:
731:
654:
635:
604:The Rambling Man
482:while you have "
384:The Rambling Man
381:
378:
280:
274:
154:
123:
113:
95:
54:The Rambling Man
38:
825:
824:
820:
819:
818:
816:
815:
814:
813:
804:
735:
729:
636:
278:
272:
86:
70:
68:
34:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
823:
821:
812:
811:
799:
798:
797:
796:
795:
794:
793:
792:
791:
790:
722:
721:
720:
719:
718:
717:
676:
675:
663:
662:
661:
660:
659:
658:
657:
656:
601:
600:
593:
592:
591:
581:
578:
577:
576:
558:
555:
552:
551:
550:
533:
532:
531:
518:
517:
516:
503:
502:
501:
476:
473:
470:
467:
466:
465:
464:
463:
462:
461:
460:
459:
395:
394:
376:
375:
374:
373:
372:
371:
370:
369:
327:
320:
317:
303:
302:
301:
300:
266:
265:
264:
245:
244:
243:
242:
234:Ahoy! - Dank (
223:
222:
176:
175:
156:Nominator(s):
149:
148:
147:
146:
144:External links
141:
136:
128:
127:
121:
120:
67:
62:
61:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
822:
810:
807:
801:
800:
789:
785:
781:
780:Sturmvogel 66
777:
776:
775:
771:
766:
765:
764:
761:
757:
756:
755:
751:
746:
745:
744:
741:
734:
727:
724:
723:
716:
712:
708:
707:Sturmvogel 66
704:
703:
702:
698:
694:
693:
692:
691:
690:
689:
685:
681:
673:
672:
671:
669:
652:
648:
644:
643:Sturmvogel 66
640:
632:
631:
630:
626:
622:
618:
617:
616:
615:
614:
613:
609:
605:
598:
594:
589:
585:
584:
582:
579:
575:
571:
567:
563:
562:
559:
556:
553:
549:
545:
541:
540:Sturmvogel 66
537:
536:
534:
530:
526:
522:
521:
519:
515:
511:
507:
506:
504:
500:
496:
492:
491:Sturmvogel 66
488:
487:
485:
481:
477:
474:
471:
468:
458:
454:
450:
449:
448:
444:
440:
439:Sturmvogel 66
435:
434:
433:
429:
425:
424:
423:
419:
415:
414:Sturmvogel 66
411:
410:
408:
404:
403:
400:
397:
396:
393:
389:
385:
379:
368:
364:
360:
356:
352:
351:
350:
346:
342:
341:
340:
336:
332:
328:
325:
321:
318:
315:
314:
313:
310:
309:
305:
304:
299:
295:
291:
290:Sturmvogel 66
287:
286:
285:
281:
275:
270:
267:
263:
259:
255:
254:Sturmvogel 66
251:
250:
247:
246:
241:
237:
233:
232:
231:
230:
229:
227:
221:
217:
213:
212:
211:
210:
206:
202:
201:Sturmvogel 66
198:
194:
190:
186:
182:
172:
168:
167:
163:
159:
158:Sturmvogel 66
153:
152:
145:
142:
140:
137:
135:
132:
131:
130:
129:
124:
119:
116:
114:
111:
107:
103:
99:
94:
90:
85:
81:
77:
73:
66:
63:
60:
58:
55:
51:
48:The list was
44:
42:
37:
32:
27:
26:
19:
805:
802:
770:push to talk
750:push to talk
725:
697:push to talk
677:
667:
666:
637:— Preceding
625:push to talk
602:
596:
588:push to talk
570:push to talk
525:push to talk
510:push to talk
483:
453:push to talk
428:push to talk
406:
398:
345:push to talk
323:
311:
307:
306:
268:
236:push to talk
225:
224:
216:push to talk
177:
171:push to talk
155:
139:Citation bot
69:
49:
47:
35:
28:
733:clear right
680:Dana boomer
484:Kongo-class
273:Giants2008
169:, - Dank (
359:Parsecboy
331:Parsecboy
183:FLs like
651:contribs
639:unsigned
437:lists.--
399:Comments
308:Comments
226:Comments
181:WP:Ships
134:Analysis
50:promoted
726:Support
668:Support
538:Done.--
357:, btw.
312:Support
126:Toolbox
89:protect
84:history
597:Alaska
407:really
324:Alaska
93:delete
738:is).
110:views
102:watch
98:links
16:<
784:talk
711:talk
684:talk
647:talk
608:talk
544:talk
495:talk
443:talk
418:talk
388:talk
363:talk
335:talk
294:talk
279:Talk
258:talk
205:talk
199:).--
197:talk
193:Dank
162:talk
106:logs
80:talk
76:edit
566:M-W
187:or
52:by
786:)
772:)
760:Ed
752:)
740:Ed
736:}}
730:{{
713:)
699:)
686:)
653:)
649:•
627:)
610:)
572:)
546:)
527:)
512:)
497:)
455:)
445:)
430:)
420:)
390:)
365:)
347:)
337:)
296:)
282:)
260:)
238:)
218:)
207:)
164:)
108:|
104:|
100:|
96:|
91:|
87:|
82:|
78:|
59:.
33:.
782:(
748:(
709:(
682:(
645:(
606:(
590:)
542:(
493:(
441:(
416:(
386:(
361:(
333:(
292:(
276:(
256:(
203:(
195:(
173:)
160:(
112:)
74:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.