Talk:Connecticut-class battleship

Inaccurate

I have a couple of concerns regarding the accuracy of the introduction. For starters, the Connecticut's were not the last US Nacy Pre-dreadnoughts, the two vessels of the Mississippi class hold that particular distinction. Also, I suspect that the Royal Navy and French Navy might have something to say about that - I seem to remember the Lord Nelson class and Danton class both being described as the "best" Pre-dreadnoughts elsewhere. Assuming no one objects I'll make a couple of minor edits to the introduction. Getztashida 15:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

OTOH, the USS New Hampshire was the last of this class launched, and that was actually after both ships of the Mississippi class. I would also not compare the specifications of the Danton class: All but one were laid down after HMS Dreadnought was launched. That would make them semi-dreadnought? Danton's competition was not the Connecticut or Lord Nelson, but later ships like Dreadnought herself, South Carolina, and Nassau. Against these Danton's very construction was sheer folly. I'll not disagree with any changes you decide to make, just please make them with this information in mind.

PS, my vote for best pre-dreadnought goes to Lord Nelson. Atkindave 18:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• I tied to clarify this a bit. There seems to be mild contradiction between the articles for the succeeding classes of battleships. What really defines a "dreadnought"? Is it all big gun, big gun with high speed, big gun with turbines, or big gun with only turbines? Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 06:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Sanbox for redeveloping this article

User talk:Kevin Murray/USS Connecticut was begun today. --Kevin Murray (talk) 19:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Connecticut-class battleship/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: West Virginian (talk · contribs) 01:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Parsecboy, I will engage in a thorough and comprehensive review of this article within the next 48 hours. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns in the meantime. Thanks! -- West Virginian (talk) 01:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

Parsecboy, I've completed a thorough and comprehensive review and re-review of this article, and I find that it meets the criteria outlined for passage to Good Article status. Prior to the article's passage, however, I do have comments and questions that should first be addressed. You've crafted yet another wonderful article here. -- West Virginian (talk)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Lede

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lede of this article adequately defines the battleship class, establishes the battleship class's necessary context, and explains why the battleship class is otherwise notable.
• The info box for the battleship class is beautifully formatted and its content is sourced within the prose of the text and by the references cited therein.
• The image of USS Connecticut (BB-18) has been released into the public domain and is therefore suitable for use here.
• The lede is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

Design

• Perhaps in the first sentence of this section, mention the United States by name, then render it as US in every subsequent usage in the main prose.
  • Done.
• The image of the line-drawing of the Connecticut class is in the public domain in the United States and can be used here in this article.
• This sentence should be reworded as such if I understand this correctly: "As a result, the US Congress was willing to authorize much larger ships for high seas operations." The question of the role of the fleet should be answered up front.
  • A good point - I've added a line to clarify this.
• Virginias renders quite oddly, I wonder if you could change all usages of Virginias to Virginia class in the article. The same goes for Connecticuts.
  • This actually came up recently (and was discussed briefly here) - my sense is that it's fine as is.
• Spanish–American War can be de-linked in the third paragraph as it has been linked in the first paragraph.
  • Good catch - I had forgotten to go through for duplicate links.
• The image of the Kansas on speed trials has been released into the Public Domain and is therefore suitable for use here.
• The image of the Connecticut‍ '​s forward 12-inch guns has also been released into the Public Domain and can be used in this article.
• Military masts should be wiki-linked to the glossary of nautical terms definition.
  • Added.
• This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

Ships

• The table is formatted beautifully, and all its contents are cited with inline citations within the table.
• This section is well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no comments or questions for this section.

Service history

• The image of the Vermont in heavy seas has been released into the Public Domain and it is therefore suitable for use in this article.
• World War I can be de-linked in the third paragraph as it was linked earlier in the "Design" section.
  • Fixed
• As is the case in many of my own articles, I do usually use up to four inline citations in a row at the end of a sentence, but six seems a little excessive. Consider using three inline citations for the first use of all six, and three inline citations for the second use of all six. The same goes for the final sentence of this section.
  • Took a bit of work but I figured out how to bundle the citations.
• This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

• The image of the Kansas has also been released into the Public Domain and it is therefore acceptable for use in this article.
  • Thanks for your review! Parsecboy (talk) 12:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Parsecboy, thank you for your timely and thorough responses to and incorporations of my suggestions and comments. I appreciate all your hard work and dedication to Wikipedia! It is hereby a privilege for me, as always, to pass this article to Good Article status. Congratulations on a job well done! -- West Virginian (talk) 17:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)