Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/List of sunken battlecruisers

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Assessment
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:16, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of sunken battlecruisers

edit
Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)


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 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.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Comment - 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. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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 course, is part of the debate that's slowed completion of the main BC article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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, Lexington was torpedoed by her own forces?" Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • 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 consequence of the Battle of Jutland...--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:41, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • What do you think of the organization of the tables?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:41, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well you could use all of them, or just go with "... that Lutzow, Akagi, and Lexington 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!)
          • 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. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • 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 find mention of anything stripped from Sara before she became a target at Bikini.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added the note about Scharnhorsts, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, looks good to me then. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:11, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Dank (push to talk)

  • "Further damaged, her captain": misplaced modifier
  • "rudding": rudder?
  • "in chronological order by date sunk": in chronological order of sinking
  • Support on prose per new standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 12:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Questions Thank you for clearing these points up, Sturmvogel 66. Hamish59 (talk) 20:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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?
    • Excellent idea. How does it read now?
  • Paragraph 1 "The next losses were a quarter century later...". Should that be "The next combat losses..." as parargraph 2 jumps back to 1919?
    • Yes.
  • 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.
    • I think not because she survived the war.
  • 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..."?
    • Yes.
  • Paragraph 3/4 - should Saratoga be in a different paragraph to Lexington?
    • Best to combine the two paragraphs, I think.
  • 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 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.
    • Good catch, done.
  • "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?
    • Actually I should probably revert that as it's a sortable list and colspan negates that.
  • Why "Scuttled battlecruisers", BTW? As this article is about battlecruisers, is this tautological, perhaps? Hmm. "Converted battlecruisers" cannot really be cut down to "Converted" so perhaps best left alone.
    • I couldn't come up with a good term either.
  • Question: is there any particular order for the German ships scuttled at Scapa Flow? Just idle curiosity...
    • Nope, sortable list.
  • Note 1, last sentence threw me: the "did/do not" bit. Perhaps "did not/do not".
    • Agreed, I think that that is clearer. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:12, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/List_of_sunken_battlecruisers&oldid=562458264"