Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Lion-class battleship

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 by Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 02:20, 17 October 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Lion-class battleship edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

Featured article candidates/Lion-class battleship/archive1

With the exception of the brand-new Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers, these battleships would have been the largest ships ever built by the Royal Navy. Construction of a pair began right before WW2 began and caused their eventual cancellation. Work began late in the war on new designs that would incorporate war experience, but a combination of ever more powerful weapons and post-war economic reality made them unaffordable and they were never ordered. I believe that the article meets the A-class criteria, although I'd like reviewers to look for infelicitous prose, unexplained or linked jargon and any examples of AmEnglish in preparation for an eventual FAC.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:06, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Kges1901 edit

I was unable to find any examples of American English, but I'm a Yank anyway.
Image review

HMS Lion.gif - I doubt this image is the uploader's own work considering that the profile drawing is suspiciously similar to this image scanned before 2016.
- I think that you're right. This image needs to be moved back to the English Wiki and given a fair use rationale. @Nikkimaria: Can you help?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:07, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is anything more known about the provenance of the earlier scan, perhaps at the credited archives? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:12, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - I can't even find the original source, in either google images or a normal search.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:43, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - I've been doing a bit of digging, and have found several similar images at the-blueprints.com, as well as this. So far nothing appropriately licensed right out of the box, so we probably will need to go with a local upload. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        I think that I've tried doing this sort of thing for much the same reason years ago, but it proved troublesome from what I remember. Should the one on Commons be deleted first?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:18, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Might be easier to upload locally with a different image name and deal with Commons deletion later. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

done and thanks for the advice.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:47, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly part of the image review, but is it possible that you could add at least a couple more images that may be relevant? Currently there are large unbroken sections of text with no illustrations.
- Since they were never finished, and had only a bare amount of steel laid down, I really doubt it as everything that I just did a search for is still in copyright.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:07, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I added a couple of images that may be useful - feel free to do with them what you will. Parsecboy (talk) 20:57, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

All sources are high quality reliable secondary sources.

Lead

Suggest avoiding the slash in battleship/aircraft carrier for clarity

Has been done. Kges1901 (talk) 20:21, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Design and Description

You may want to rephrase increased weight of the main armament in the first paragraph since there are consecutive sentences with the same phrase, which appear exactly vertical from each other in a standard browser.
- Good catch
Suggest rephrasing the footnote since it is essentially a quote without context, or integrating the seemingly significant opinion into the text.

Has been done. Kges1901 (talk) 20:21, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"American insistence" - Perhaps use a synonym as it doesn't seem necessary to directly quote the source.
- Reworked that bit entirely. See how it reads
Suggest linking the exact types of guns in the body (and lead) on first mention unless you have a reason not to, i.e. 5.25 in DP guns.
- I'd prefer not to.
Their rate of fire was two rounds per minute. The ships carried 100 shells per gun. Sentences could be combined as they are too short by themselves. Same suggestion applies for the other similar gun descriptions in the paragraph.
- Good idea, see if I've varied the phrasing enough to prevent a reader's eyes from crossing.

I think you've done the best possible given the limited variety of usable words.

all but the new Mk III 16-inch turret. This was finally cancelled by the First Sea Lord on 10 March 1949. Suggest combining the last sentence with the previous one, I presume it means the turret as well.
- Good idea
not well liked - perhaps "not approved of" or "not greeted with approval"

Has been done. Kges1901 (talk) 20:21, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Construction

Only the first four received names, correct?
Contracts for Conqueror and Thunderer were awarded on 15 August to John Brown and Fairfield. Suggest making this more clear to emphasize that both ships were not going to be built by both companies, perhaps "The contract for Conqueror was awarded to John Brown on 15 August, while that for Thunderer went to Fairfield on the same day"?
When in 1942 were they cancelled, if available in sources?
Is there information on what happened to the Temeraire's keel? Lead says both were scrapped after the war but it is not mentioned in the body. Kges1901 (talk) 23:45, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Your questions have prompted me to rework the entire construction section as I hadn't fully updated it. See if my changes satisfy your comments and thanks for your prompt review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent expansion, but the section still does not explicitly state that Temeraire was scrapped in 1942. Kges1901 (talk) 22:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After thoroughly revising the design in late 1942, the RN's Director of Contracts wrote to Vickers Armstrongs and Cammell Laird "requesting them to clear the slipways and reuse the material on other naval contracts where possible. That's as definitive as my sources get.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:07, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for addressing my comments. Kges1901 (talk) 20:21, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

I'm not in a position to do any spot checks here, but the sources are all high quality RS. Based on my knowledge of the literature on British battleship designs, they are likely the best-possible sources on this topic. Nick-D (talk) 11:28, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Nick. I've offered it up for the sourcing workshop that's been proposed at FAC, so I expect it'll get thoroughly inspected source-wise there whenever that starts.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:58, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good. Given the number of source reviews you've gone through in this topic area over the years, I have no concerns at all about not being able to spot check here. Nick-D (talk) 22:20, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nick-D edit

This is a very interesting topic, and it's good so see such a I quality article on it. I have the following comments and suggestions:

The lead is a bit on the short side for the length of the article - a second para would be helpful
- I split it and added a sentence as I don't really think that there's much more that can be added. Happy to take suggestions, though.
Which iteration of the design is shown in the image in the infobox?
The first para of the 'Design and description' section starts abruptly. Bringing forward the material on the London Treaty and then moving onto the discussion of how this design originated would help
- See how it reads now.
  - I still think that this is too abrupt - the first sentence should explain how the events of the para link to the ships Nick-D (talk) 11:15, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think that I understand what you mean. See if I've satisfied your concern.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:22, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Not really - I've added an introduction sentence to the para along the lines of what I'm thinking. Does this look OK? Nick-D (talk) 00:00, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        That looks fine.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:43, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"They displaced" ... " The Lion-class ships had four sets of geared", etc: as none of these ships was completed and the design wasn't even finalised, the tense seems wrong. I'd suggest tweaking this to "they would have displaced", "wer planned to have for sets" etc. This is particularly the case for the material discussing the potential performance of the ships: as none were built, you can't really say how effective their engines or armament would have been.
- I understand your point, but it reads very awkwardly to me. I'd much prefer it if I didn't have to use so many "would have been"s and "intended to be". Happy to take suggestions here as well
Was any use made of the 16-inch guns? (do any survive?)
Have any historians discussed how good the various Lion class designs were? As the KGVs were generally successful other than their weak armament, are they considered likely to have been a good iterative improvement? Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review, Nick, see if they satisfy your concerns.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:15, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Other than the above point, those changes look good. Sorry again for the very slow response here. Nick-D (talk) 11:15, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments are now all addressed. Nick-D (talk) 01:33, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Ian edit

Copyedited (but pretty lightly) so let me know any probs.
No particular concerns re. structure and comprehensiveness.
I also checked source reliability out of habit and found no issues; there were a couple of formatting inconsistencies that I dealt with.
Checked licensing for images added after the initial image discussion above and saw no issues. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:21, 14 October 2018 (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.