Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of battlecruisers of the United States/archive1

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 17:35, 1 August 2012 [1].

List of battlecruisers of the United States edit

List of battlecruisers of the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC), - Dank (push to talk)[reply]

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 disguise. In format it matches the other WP:Ships FLs like List of battlecruisers of the Royal Navy or List of battlecruisers of Germany 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 Dank (talk).--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I jumped in at the A-class review to help with language and organization, and I'm happy to help here too. - Dank (push to talk) 13:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – First off, great to see Dank helping out at an FLC. Welcome aboard!

Ahoy! - Dank (push to talk) 02:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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.
    • Glad to hear it. But I think that a minimum size ought to be specified to avoid any further incidents like that.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:38, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Support
    • 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.
    • Maybe worth spelling out that the WNT was an arms limitation treaty - this is clear to us, but probably not to the average reader.
    • Maybe specify that the Alaskas were decommissioned two years after the end of WWII, not a vague "several years later" (which implies a longer duration, at least to me).
    • Is the "Found using Google Scholar" thing really necessary on the last entry in the further reading section? Parsecboy (talk) 18:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments 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.
  • I really dislike that navbox in the lead, and would by far prefer an image one of the battlecruisers, it would really help engage readers who perhaps aren't even sure what a battlecruiser is or looks like.
    • The navbox is common to all of the national ship lists.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:38, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Would it be possible to have some sort of image above the navbox? - Dank (push to talk) 23:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • 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 lists.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:34, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • 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 (push to talk) 23:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "battlecruiser" is quickly over linked in the lead.
  • "of an armaments limitation treaty" not significant enough for an article?
  • "The Navy subsequently..." reinforce US Navy since the last "Navy" you mentioned was the Royal one.
  • Our article is called Kongō class battlecruiser while you have "Kongo-class battlecruisers", I would suggest consistency within the MILHIST project.
    • 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.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:38, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "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.
    • Did the [four] above, except the navbox. - Dank (push to talk) 20:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as part of the massive 1916 building program" what is this? Did you mention it/link it before?
    • "So when Congress authorized a large naval building program in 1916", 1.5 paragraphs above. - Dank (push to talk) 20:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would link "long ton" the first time round since it's uncommon these days.
  • Is "cancelled" USEng? I thought it was "canceled"?
  • 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......)
  • "They were popularly known, and known by historians, as " ->" They were known, both popularly and by historians, as..." perhaps to avoid the "known" repeat?
    • Did these four, except "cancelled", which is in M-W. I'll leave the rest for Sturm when he gets back. Thanks much for the review! - Dank (push to talk) 21:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 13, isn't the publisher NH&HC like the preceding refs?
  • Same for ref 15.
  • I looked at ref 23 which was supposed to tell me that Alaska 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.

The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Sturm, Nick agrees with this; please see User talk:Dank#RfA observation. I also didn't field the "navbox in the lead" point. I think I got the rest of them. Thanks much, TRM. - Dank (push to talk) 01:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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 say that they were placed in reserve. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sturmvogel 66 (talk • contribs)

Support - 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:

  • Why are there a couple of works duplicated between the References and Further reading sections?

Other than this, everything looks great, so I'm happy to support. Dana boomer (talk) 15:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • 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 (push to talk) 16:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 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 {{clear right}} is). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    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 (push to talk) 09:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's between the second and third paragraphs. I've sent you and Sturm a screenshot via email. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    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 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 (push to talk) 20:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    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.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_battlecruisers_of_the_United_States/archive1&oldid=1076194972"