88:
important is it that some were converted into other ship types? The introductory text can handle that if need be, IMO, but other opinions would be useful. I would also like to see how clear this is for non-ship types as specialists often have blind spots. I know that the FLC people have a requirement for ALT text; I'll be adding that as I get time, so that's not an issue right now.--
366:
Paragraph 5 - "...Kirishima was forced to cast off her tow because of repeated aerial attacks. Her captain ordered her crew to abandon ship ..." does not seem to scan right. Sounds like
Kirishima's captain ordered his own crew to abandon ship. I know that reading the rest of the sentence clarifies
201:
It does, doesn't it? I have no answer, but that there honestly don't seem to be any that I could find. Sara and Lex dismounted their old 8-inch guns before Coral Sea, but they've been scrapped since and I suspect that much the same happened to any guns dismounted from the other ships. I can't even
118:
Damn good question, but the answer depends if you count ships that started as BCs or ships sunk in their original configuration. As for your second point, I agree that a definition should be added, if for nothing else to explain why the
Dunkerques and Scharnhorsts haven't been included. Which, of
148:
That was my initial thought, yes. Thanks for the DYK suggestion, but Lutzow and Akagi were also scuttled by torpedoes. Maybe something like the greatest single loss of battlecruisers was the ecuttling of 5 German BCs at Scapa Flow. Or the greatest number of BCs lost in a single battle was 4 as a
87:
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I think I've cited just about everything that didn't move fast enough to avoid me. I would like reviewers to especially consider the structure and organization of the tables; should they be combined into one or two larger tables and how
375:"Sunk in combat" table combines the "date sunk" entries for the 3 British ships lost at Jutland (and the "location" for SMS Lützow), but you do not use the same technique in the "Scuttled battlecruisers" table for the 5 German ships at Scapa Flow. Inconsistent?
349:
Paragraph 3 "...convert two of its
Lexington classs during..." Too many "S" in "classs"? Or is it just me? What is the plural of "class"? Perhaps "...convert two of its Lexington class ships during..."?
367:
this, but it made me pause on first reading. Perhaps "Hiei's captain ordered her crew to abandon ship after further damage and scuttled her in the early evening of 14 November." or some such.
341:
Paragraph 3 talks about two of three
Courageous class - should there be a foot note / mention of the 3rd (for completeness)? Or would that be digressing? Just a question, not important.
325:
The text forms one large lead section. Would this be better broken down into a lead that explains the article (a one or two paragrph intro?), then the rest of it in a separate section?
21:
109:- so, how many battlecruisers have been sunk, in total? That may be a good thing to include in the first sentence, along with just what battlecruisers are. :-)
189:
were all sunk by their own forces?" Something that seems commonplace to us isn't so common to those unfamiliar with maritime history (i.e. 99% of the world!)
415:
320:
296:
282:
244:
235:
211:
196:
172:
158:
143:
128:
113:
97:
57:
192:
Only comment I have on the tables is are there no relics of the converted battlecruisers? It seems odd to have relics for everything but that table.
17:
333:
Paragraph 1 "The next losses were a quarter century later...". Should that be "The next combat losses..." as parargraph 2 jumps back to 1919?
133:
That might make for a nice footnote, don't you think? ;-) Also, for DYK you could go with "... that after the Battle of the Coral Sea,
432:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
63:
39:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
387:, perhaps? Hmm. "Converted battlecruisers" cannot really be cut down to "Converted" so perhaps best left alone.
395:
Question: is there any particular order for the German ships scuttled at Scapa Flow? Just idle curiosity...
411:
292:
231:
207:
168:
154:
124:
93:
77:
274:
134:
384:
407:
316:
288:
227:
203:
164:
150:
120:
89:
73:
53:
378:
Actually I should probably revert that as it's a sortable list and colspan negates that.
278:
254:
383:
Why "Scuttled battlecruisers", BTW? As this article is about battlecruisers, is this
312:
241:
193:
140:
110:
49:
202:
find mention of anything stripped from Sara before she became a target at Bikini.--
403:
Note 1, last sentence threw me: the "did/do not" bit. Perhaps "did not/do not".
119:
course, is part of the debate that's slowed completion of the main BC article.--
358:
Paragraph 3/4 - should
Saratoga be in a different paragraph to Lexington?
267:"in chronological order by date sunk": in chronological order of sinking
406:
Agreed, I think that that is clearer. Thanks for the review.--
177:
Well you could use all of them, or just go with "... that
311:
Thank you for clearing these points up, Sturmvogel 66.
163:
What do you think of the organization of the tables?--
261:"Further damaged, her captain": misplaced modifier
8:
361:Best to combine the two paragraphs, I think.
18:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Military history
390:I couldn't come up with a good term either.
344:I think not because she survived the war.
226:Added the note about Scharnhorsts, etc.--
149:consequence of the Battle of Jutland...--
328:Excellent idea. How does it read now?
7:
240:Fair enough, looks good to me then.
33:The following discussion is closed.
139:was torpedoed by her own forces?"
28:
426:The discussion above is closed.
287:Thanks, Dank, all fixes made.--
1:
64:List of sunken battlecruisers
449:
297:16:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
283:12:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
245:22:11, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
236:03:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
212:03:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
429:Please do not modify it.
416:20:12, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
321:20:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
197:23:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
173:07:41, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
159:07:41, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
144:06:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
129:06:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
114:05:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
98:16:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
58:22:16, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
36:Please do not modify it.
398:Nope, sortable list.
275:standard disclaimer
264:"rudding": rudder?
370:Good catch, done.
273:on prose per new
82:
440:
431:
70:
38:
448:
447:
443:
442:
441:
439:
438:
437:
436:
427:
67:
34:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
446:
444:
435:
434:
422:
421:
420:
419:
418:
401:
400:
399:
393:
392:
391:
381:
380:
379:
373:
372:
371:
364:
363:
362:
356:
355:
354:
347:
346:
345:
339:
338:
337:
331:
330:
329:
323:
302:
301:
300:
299:
268:
265:
262:
248:
247:
225:
224:
223:
222:
221:
220:
219:
218:
217:
216:
215:
214:
190:
161:
86:
84:
83:
72:Nominator(s):
66:
61:
43:
42:
41:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
445:
433:
430:
424:
423:
417:
413:
409:
408:Sturmvogel 66
405:
404:
402:
397:
396:
394:
389:
388:
386:
382:
377:
376:
374:
369:
368:
365:
360:
359:
357:
352:
351:
348:
343:
342:
340:
335:
334:
332:
327:
326:
324:
322:
318:
314:
310:
307:
304:
303:
298:
294:
290:
289:Sturmvogel 66
286:
285:
284:
280:
276:
272:
269:
266:
263:
260:
259:
258:
256:
252:
246:
243:
239:
238:
237:
233:
229:
228:Sturmvogel 66
213:
209:
205:
204:Sturmvogel 66
200:
199:
198:
195:
191:
188:
184:
180:
176:
175:
174:
170:
166:
165:Sturmvogel 66
162:
160:
156:
152:
151:Sturmvogel 66
147:
146:
145:
142:
138:
137:
132:
131:
130:
126:
122:
121:Sturmvogel 66
117:
116:
115:
112:
108:
105:
102:
101:
100:
99:
95:
91:
90:Sturmvogel 66
81:
79:
75:
74:Sturmvogel 66
69:
68:
65:
62:
60:
59:
55:
51:
48:
40:
37:
31:
30:
23:
19:
428:
425:
385:tautological
308:
305:
279:push to talk
270:
255:push to talk
250:
249:
186:
182:
178:
135:
106:
103:
85:
71:
46:
44:
35:
32:
277:. - Dank (
22:Assessment
309:Questions
187:Lexington
136:Lexington
313:Hamish59
253:- Dank (
251:Comments
50:Hawkeye7
47:promoted
45:Article
20: |
306:Support
271:Support
107:Comment
104:Support
185:, and
179:Lutzow
183:Akagi
16:<
412:talk
353:Yes.
336:Yes.
317:talk
293:talk
232:talk
208:talk
169:talk
155:talk
125:talk
94:talk
78:talk
54:talk
414:)
319:)
295:)
281:)
257:)
242:Ed
234:)
210:)
194:Ed
181:,
171:)
157:)
141:Ed
127:)
111:Ed
96:)
56:)
410:(
315:(
291:(
230:(
206:(
167:(
153:(
123:(
92:(
80:)
76:(
52:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.