Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/L 20e α-class battleship/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 24 May 2019 [1].

L 20e α-class battleship

edit
Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 15:43, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The L20e α class was the final serious battleship design of the Imperial German Navy during World War I - there were a slew of other proposals before and after, but none were more than paper design studies. Regardless, these ships were not built either, owing to the shift in emphasis from the surface fleet to the U-boat campaign during the war, as well as Germany's increasingly poor military situation by 1918. The article passed a Milhist A-class review last year. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 15:43, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

edit

Another class another review.

  • "42,000 t (41,337 long tons)", "Unknown", "8 × 42 cm guns", "235 m (771 ft 0 in)", "240 m (787 ft 5 in)" "32 m (105 ft 0 in)" and "9 m (29 ft 6 in)" are not centred while the rest of the wikitable is.
    • I'm not a code guy, but I managed to figure out how to fix it by fiddling around with it - now I need to back to all the other tables I've done and fix them!
  • 44,500 metric tons (43,800 long tons) and 45,000 metric tons (44,000 long tons) respectively remove the "(44,000 long tons)" part there is already one previously.
    • Done
  • have been 50 mm (2.0 in) thick forward, increased to 50 to 60 mm (2.0 to 2.4 in) amidships and 50 to 120 mm (2.0 to 4.7 in) aft This one has two minor issues. First remove the first "2.0"'s oh and then remove the other two "2.0"s.
    • Fixed
  • If it's possible please change p. 1017. --> p. 1,017. in the ref 8.
    • I don't think it's normal to put commas in page numbers
  • The section "General characteristics and machinery" uses long tons and short tons but the rest of the article doesn't use the short one.
    • Fixed
  • "32 m (105 ft 0 in)" Unnecessary inch.
    • Fixed
  • "235 to 237 m (771 ft 0 in to 777 ft 7 in)" In there an option to remove the "771 ft 0 in"? I mean there is one previously but is it possible to remove it?
    • That I can do
  • Shouldn't the source of Mulligan been "1,013–1,044" or is there a reason why not?
    • As above, I don't think it's normal to put commas in page numbers
  • Could you also drop the inches in "(771 ft 0 in)"? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:49, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Last comment and 45000 MT respectively shouldn't it be "45,000 MT"? Also what does the MT stand for? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:18, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, good catch. Parsecboy (talk) 14:36, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's it (for now). Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:11, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks CPA! Parsecboy (talk) 19:54, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:11, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by L293D

edit

You might want to add the main battery caliber in inches as well in the two tables, since most of the other info is in centimeters and inches. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:32, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They're both already converted (in the lead and in the body), I feel like doing it three times is overkill. Parsecboy (talk) 11:41, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Gog the Mild

edit
  • The title of the article has a space between L and 20. Within the article there is no space. I assume that the title is incorrect?
    • No, the article is "wrong" - the space got lost when I expanded the article with Dodson, as he doesn't use it, but other sources do, so I'm going to standardize that way
  • "Beginning before the start of World War I in July 1914, the German Kaiserliche Marine (Imperial Navy) began planning" It is unclear if the planning began in July, or the war. (I know that it was both, but you don't say so.
    • Reworded to make this clearer
  • "These ships were armed with a …" It is unclear to me whether "these ships" refers to the Bayerns or the L20e αs.
    • Clarified
  • "They also differed in the placement of the torpedo armament." "They" -> 'It' for consistency.
    • Done
  • "During the designing" 'design process'?
    • Fixed
  • "that the ships could be built quickly and placed into service" -> 'built and placed into service quickly'?
    • Good idea
  • "The ships were to have been powered by" "The ships" -> 'They? (Previous sentence starts with "The ships".)
    • Done
  • "The belt began 35 cm (13.8 in) below the waterline to 195 cm (76.8 in) above it." Perhaps '... the waterline and extended to ...'?
    • Sounds good to me
  • "increased to 50 to 60 mm (2.4 in) amidships" Optional: would it be possible to rephrase to lose one of the to's?
    • Done
  • Note b: "meaning that the gun is 45 times long as it is in diameter": '45 times as long as'
    • Done
  • Note b: "meaning that the gun is 45 times long as it is in diameter". "diameter" is ambiguous. Does "diameter" refer to external diameter or internal? And if internal, land to land or groove to groove. From context a reader is likely to assume external diameter, which, of course would be incorrect. "long", referring to "the gun", seems to me to be incorrect; caliber is not calculated from the external length of the gun, but the internal length of the barrel.
    • Clarified somewhat - on lands vs. grooves, that I don't know, and on the length of the gun, at least in German practice, that's not correct. For example, the overall length of the 30.5 cm SK L/50 was 15.25 meters, which is exactly 50 calibers (and the internal length amounts to about 47.4 calibers) - this difference also plays a role in confusion over the length of the 38 cm SK C/34 guns used in the Bismarck-class battleships, which are alternatively described as 47 calibers or 52 calibers depending on who you ask.
  • Really? Ah well, I suppose that Germans are allowed to be idiosyncratic too.
  • Do we have any idea of what the range of the final design might have been?
    • No, nothing I've seen

Just bits and pieces; a very good article.

Gog the Mild (talk) 20:20, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gog. Parsecboy (talk) 16:50, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: - can you take another look and see if there's anything else that needs to be addressed? Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 18:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's a lot of non-breaking spaces :) . Everything looks fine Parsecboy, a grand piece of work. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:41, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

edit
  • Just one very small point: is there a reason why the citations for the two footnotes have not been standardized?
    • There was a time that standard footnotes couldn't be nested inside of a note and that was the work-around, but apparently I forgot to update these until now.
  • Otherwise the sources apppear to be uniformly presented, and are of the appropriate standards of quality and reliability to meet the FA criteria. Brianboulton (talk) 17:12, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66

edit
  • Three-drum boiler#Thornycroft-Schulz boiler will give you a link to the exact boiler type used by these ships. And probably many others!
    • Thanks - I apparently forgot to check the links when I rewrote the article
  • Need a conversion for 170 mm in the infobox
    • Done
  • design plan Isn't this kinda redundant?
    • Indeed
  • Link class in the lede
    • Done
  • began in 1914 but the outbreak Shouldn't there be a comma before "but" and here: German plans but Tirpitz nevertheless
    • Yup
  • Kaiserliche Marine (Imperial Navy) redundant to the lede
    • Removed
  • designs and in April, the first three proposals were submitted "in April" should either be set off with commas fore and aft or moved to follow "submitted"
    • Fixed
  • Link the headers in the first table and then watch out for overlinking in the characteristics section
  • was an extremely long process perhaps time-consuming rather than long?
    • Sounds good to me
  • Link tripod mast, main mast and conning tower
    • Done
  • The ships were also to have had a forecastle deck that was 20 to 40 mm (0.8 to 1.6 in) thick. The ships were also Too many "were also"s in close conjunction
    • Reworded
  • Suggest that you add |lastauthoramp=y to get the citations and the references to match--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:53, 17 May 2019 (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_article_candidates/L_20e_α-class_battleship/archive1&oldid=1073367994"