Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/South Carolina-class battleship/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 Ian Rose 10:02, 31 December 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

South Carolina-class battleship[edit]

Nominator(s): Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These "epoch" warships were the first dreadnoughts fielded by the United States Navy. Congressionally-mandated weight restrictions (some two to three thousand tons less than the earlier British Dreadnought) were the impetus for some of the class' many innovations, but they also led to their uselessness during the First World War—their comparatively slow speed limited them to convoy escorting and home defense, the tasks also assigned to completely obsolete battleships from years before. Their ignominious careers were ended alongside dozens of other warships by the Washington Naval Treaty.

This is my first FAC since Pennsylvania-class battleship, where I made the same style choices (including the collapsed infobox). My thanks in advance for all constructive criticism. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Draft differs between text and infobox, as do conversions for range
Check alphabetization of journal articles
FN1, 21: title formatting
FN16: capitalization
Washington: should specify DC
Be consistent in whether you include locations for periodicals
FN23: formatting
No citations to Poundstone. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:52, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been waiting for other responses to fix all issues at once, but ... that hasn't happened yet. I'll fix these in the next couple days, whether there are more comments or not. Thanks, Nikki. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:03, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Doublechecking the infobox. (Washington, DC) is there because it can be confused with at least The Navy (London) and probably a few others. Not sure what you mean by alphabetization and formatting? Poundstone added. Thanks, Nikki. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:37, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I could have sworn that I'd responded to a peer review that you started for this article. Only had time to comment on the first couple of sections, but I don't recall any response, so I didn't pursue it. I couldn't find any peer review, but maybe I'm just imagining things.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:15, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I asked you via email and you went through a small part of it. It was awhile ago, though. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:03, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - My impression is that my comments there haven't been incorporated into the article, but I could be wrong. Let me know if that's correct or not and I'll work some more on it. BTW, fix any redlinks if they're typos rather than genuine missing articles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:55, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"began to believe": year? - Dank (push to talk) 17:04, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"20th century", "twentieth century": consistency
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 04:22, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Really, really hate the collapsed infobox.
What do you mean by standard in the displacement entry? Washington Treaty definition? Or some other US standard?
How about some rounding in the beam and draft entries?
Fix the damn red link in Propulsion and add the boilers to that entry.
Coal capacity really isn't of much interest to a casual reader; I relegate it to the main body.
Enlisted what?
Add a space after barbettes to match the other armor entries.
Stick with either inches or pound when describing armor thicknesses; don't mix them together. That will allow you to get rid of one note as well.
slightly more than the next three battleship classes had The last word is unnecessary, IMO.
, and were completed in all respects Seems kinda redundant, n'est-ce pas? Doesn't completed mean "in all respects"?
This is confusing: damaged propeller blade made the starboard engine run at 1,000 horsepower more than the other The propeller blade required 1000 hp more to rotate at the same speed, or did it cause the relevant engine's output to increase?
placed into the US Atlantic Fleet How about simply "assigned"?
When was the naval review?
Link light cruiser.
Fix the link for deck armor.
How about ISSNs for the journals where available?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:14, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Agree with Sturm - I don't care much for the collapsed infobox.
"a striking power only slightly heavier..." - drop the "only"
"final determinant in a naval battleship" - as opposed to what, an aerial battleship?
Keep an eye on ENGVAR - the convert template for the 11-inch guns Poundstone proposed produces "millimetres" for instance. And the tonnage conversion for said design should be rendered as "metric tons", rather than "tonnes".
I believe the lead image should be set to 300px rather than 400.
Link HMS Dreadnought in the text (as opposed to just the quote box).
Also, it might be worthwhile to introduce HMS Dreadnought in the text, rather than in the quote box. I for one frequently skip over such things and it seemed rather jarring to have Dreadnought mentioned in the text with no introduction or explanation for why we should care about some random ship and the speed at which she could steam.
Why is the citation for the quote in the service history section a parenthetical reference rather than a footnote? Parsecboy (talk) 21:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Coemgenus[edit]

"it provoked enough thought that Proceedings published comments on the story from Captain W.M. Folger, Professor P.R. Alger and David W. Taylor, the former the foremost gunnery expert in the Navy, the latter an up-and-coming officer and future chief constructor." -- you've got three names and two descriptions. I'm not sure who is who here.
Is USS Possible ever going to be an article? I'm all for redlinks where future expansion is likely, but the article suggests that Possible was just a design, never a shop.
Maybe a line or two about why the Treaty of Washington required the major sea powers to scrap capital ships would be useful to the reader.
That's all I have. Nice article, I look forward to supporting. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:31, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @User:The ed17 . I think reviewers are waitng for responses. Graham Colm (talk) 17:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm not sure where Ed is or when he's due back; if not this weekend, say, we'll probably have to archive... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been far busier recently than I expected to be, and the holiday shenanigans haven't helped. If I haven't gotten back to this by Sunday, please archive it—I can always renominate it in the future after addressing the excellent points above. Thank you all for your patience. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:23, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, tks Ed. I think we've reached that point now, so I'll archive and hope to see it back at some later date once the extant comments are actioned. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:26, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ian. It'll be back. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 22:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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