Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lexington class battlecruiser/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 09:08, 9 August 2009 [1].

---

Lexington class battlecruiser

Nominator(s): —Ed (Talk • Say no to drama) 06:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• Featured article candidates/Lexington class battlecruiser/archive1

Four of six ships in the United States' first and only true class of battlecruisers were canceled due to the terms of the Washington Naval Treaty, though two were converted to aircraft carriers and fought in the Second World War. The article passed a WP:MILHIST A-class review back in December and a GAN in January. Any and all comments are welcome and encouraged; I do not expect this to be 100% ready because I wrote it seven months ago, before other FACs have taught me (somewhat) better prose. Thanks and cheers, —Ed (Talk • Say no to drama) 06:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Done; thanks. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 08:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I've made my attempts at adding alts; could you double check them? Thanks, —Ed (Talk • Say no to drama) 08:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks for doing that. Some suggestions for further improvement, so that the alt text conforms better to WP:ALT: Remove phrases like "Painting of a" (these are duplicates of the caption, and are less important for alt text; see the 2nd example in WP:ALT #Flawed and better examples). Do not use phrases like "seven funnels (though only five can be seen from this side angle)" because this strays from describing what the reader can easily verify by viewing the image (see WP:ALT #What not to specify). Similarly, avoid phrases like "design of the Lexington's" and "proposed", as this can't easily be verified by a non-expert reader who is merely looking at the image. It might not hurt to look at those examples in WP:ALT, if you haven't already. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 08:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
      • I had already ;) I've made some additional tweaks, if you could take a look; is the alt for the image in the "Ships" section sufficent? I couldn't think of a good way to describe the structure(s) that is/are around the ship... —Ed (Talk • Say no to drama) 19:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Neither can I, so let's say it's done. I did tweak the alt text for the two models; hope that helps. Eubulides (talk) 20:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
• What was the disposition of the secondary armament going to be like? Turrets, casemates, or open mounts? And did it evolve over time? Linking some of the terms in the infobox to their wiki articles might be useful. I'm thinking about things like barbette, etc., that are a little more obscure than most. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Wow, I kept meaning to get back to this and evidently never did. The 6"/53 were to be in casemates, and I'll try to work on the linking tomorrow. Thanks for your comments! —Ed (Talk • Say no to drama) 04:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: You mention twice in the article that in the original 1916 design the battlecruisers would have a main armament of "ten 14"/50 caliber guns in four turrets (two triple superfiring over two dual)." In other words, the triple turrets would fire over the twin turrets. Is this correct? Breyer shows dual turrets firing over triple turrets, the same as in the Nevada class battleships, and it seems as though having triple turrets on top would make the ships top-heavy. Jonyungk (talk) 16:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Hmm. I thought it was a little odd two when I wrote this, but both Morison and the Navy say two triple over two twin. I'm getting Breyer through inter-library loan sometime soon and I'll add the discrepancy between sources in then. Thanks! —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 08:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comments: Throughout the article I keep seeing many "However,"'s. At least 6-8 times but I didn't count them all. It starts to get repetitious.

Under the Original and subsequent redesigns section there are words used like "impressive" and "sparse" which read like pov.

Please reduce wikilinks. Washington Naval Treaty is linked twice in one section for example. Other wikilinks to things of minor importance should be removed as well; like locations in the US.

The Naval Historical Center is now called Naval History & Heritage Command. Some of your references still carry the old name. Your "retrieved on" dates should be brought to current rather than 6 + months ago.

Really nice to see a ship article referenced to printed material for a change! --Brad (talk) 23:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support Really? I am the first to support the article? Wow. At any rate, outstanding read. Keep it up!!!!! TomStar81 (Talk) 05:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Withdraw please - as much as I'd love to see this article get a star, there are a couple problems: (a) I don't have the time to deal with comments for the next couple weeks and (b) not enough people are commenting for this to pass. Thanks Sandy/Karanacs in advance, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.