Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/List of battlecruisers of Russia

List of battlecruisers of Russia

This is my first list although I've modeled it on Parsec's lists of German BBs and BCs. As this will eventually be going to ACR and FLC I'm most interested in things that will help me through those reviews. I'm also concerned about flow and appropriate focus; I found it odd to try and summarize the article for the main body and then to summarize the first summary for the lead so I'm not sure how successful I was. And, as usual, please point out any issues with prose so I can fix them myself.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GraemeLeggett

Trim the summaries (aggressively). There's far too much reading before you get to the lists of ships. If the lede for the Borodino class article is only a paragraph why does this article need four paragraphs? GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Parsecboy

One thing for the moment: the fair use images need to have non-free use rationales added for this list. Parsecboy (talk) 15:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They have them already. I'm not sure I understand what you mean "for this list" Does every article that uses a fair use image need a separate rationale?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep -MBK₀₀₄ 23:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What a waste of time. Once it's fair use for one, it should be fair use for all.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I personally think copyright laws are far too restrictive (seriously, if I created something, I couldn't give a damn what people do with it after I died, but for some reason it would still be protected for 70 years, which incidentally seems a very random length of time). Parsecboy (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get around to adding the ludicrous extra rationales sometime; I've not been in a hurry as Kaga's been stuck in limbo for so long and nobody's done much with Princess Royal yet so there's no room for me to put it up for an ACR yet.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-Ed

Is there a reason why the Kirov class are not included? The "Key" table is probably unnecessary imho. Also, since most of the details for each of the designs are the same, would it not be better to put the tables on the right side of the section for each class, using the standard vertical infobox design? The information on the date of scrapping etc could be summarised at the bottom. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be one very tall list, requiring multiple page downs to view. The Soviets didn't call the Kirovs battlecruiser, but something like large missile ship.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the "Key" table, it was suggested when I took List of battlecruisers of Germany through FLC, which was the model for this list. While the things in the key are obvious to people like us, there are many people who would not understand what "laid down" exactly means. Parsecboy (talk) 18:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]