Talk:South Dakota-class battleship (1920)

South Dakota-class battleship (1920) has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: April 18, 2019. (Reviewed version).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the South Dakota-class battleship (1920) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

United States: Military history Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Military history - U.S. military history task force.

South Dakota Low‑importance

	South Dakota portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Dakota, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of South Dakota on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South DakotaWikipedia:WikiProject South DakotaTemplate:WikiProject South DakotaSouth Dakota
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Maritime / North America / United States / Operation Majestic Titan

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	Operation Majestic Titan (Phase I)

Ships

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips

Items for Possible Deletion

I'm always hesitant to remove content that someone else had put in before my edit, but I don't think the paragraph about the Lexingtons is relevant, and the section on reuse of names seems unnecessary. I'd like to delete both of these. Comments?--Busaccsb (talk) 04:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Standard type battleship

I noticed that standard type is not a regular article, but a category page. This seems odd, given that it goes beyond what a category page usually does, and actually offers a good explanation of what the standard type is. I think this should be be an article. Comments?--Busaccsb (talk) 04:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Construction / Shipyard / Progress

Since the individual ships do not have Wikipedia pages, I think an table listed these ships, which shipyard for each ship, and perhaps keel laying, and cancellation date might be helpful. Wfoj2 (talk) 22:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Missing references

A couple of references are cited in the article without being included in the bibliography. These are: Hone 2011 and Anderson and Baker 1977. These really need to be added or the citations removed.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've been trolling the Internet, unsuccessfully, trying to figure out which references these relate to. Since the original editor is no longer active on en.wiki, I've sent them an email asking for clarification. — Huntster (t @ c) 11:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Battle Line: The United States Navy 1919-1939 is probably the best candidate, though the only editions are 2006 and 2013. Innovation in carrier aviation was published in 2011, but is unlikely to have covered the propulsion system of a class of battleships in any detail. Anybody have easy access to Battleline to check the page numbers?

As for Anderson and Baker, that ref can be found here. I've added it to the article. Parsecboy (talk) 12:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not Innovation, as the page number given here matches to a citation list there. Are you sure about "CV-2 Lex and CV-3 Sara"? Seems odd, though I have no access to a copy to verify. — Huntster (t @ c) 12:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's highly plausible that the "Lex and Sara" article would have made reference the South Dakota class, since they were contemporary designs, especially if, for instance, one of the classes borrowed design aspects from the other. I believe @Sturmvogel 66: has the article - or at he at least had it when he wrote the Lexington-class aircraft carrier article - so perhaps he can confirm the reference. Parsecboy (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both designs used turbo-electric propulsion and had much in common, so the ref is valid. I expanded the pages numbers in the cite to cover all the info covered.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sturm. I may have found a nearby library with access to the Battle Line book, and hopefully that will help verify the "Hone 2011" reference. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:35, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect Unit Conversions

The unit conversions are incorrect for the ship's armor. 13.5 inches is 343mm not 340, and 5 inches is 127mm not 130. Is there a more accurate conversion system available? I was not able to edit the values manually due to them using a conversion system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prince of Darimar (talk • contribs) 10:27, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Turbo-electric drive

If she used DC propulsion motors the steam turbines would be coupled to generators (DC) not alternators (AC). Hugo999 (talk) 05:31, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:South Dakota-class battleship (1920)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Parsecboy (talk · contribs) 19:36, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this one. Parsecboy (talk) 19:36, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One dupe link
"51-caliber 5-inch (127 mm) secondary armament" - I think the MoS advises against 3 links in a row
You might link marines to United States Marine Corps
Ireland isn't used in the article
- You missed this one, but I removed the ref.
The DANFS entries for Indiana, North Carolina, and Massachusetts don't cover the percentage completed
DANFS entries for SoDak, Indiana, Montana, and Iowa have author names if you want to add them
File:NH 44895 South Dakota class battleship (BB 49-54).tif - wouldn't this be PD-USGov-Military-Navy? Parsecboy (talk) 20:39, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- All done. Thanks for looking this over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:45, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looks good, happy to promote. Parsecboy (talk) 23:52, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cancellation

So, except for the intro, nowhere in the article actually states that the class was cancelled because of the Washington Naval Treaty. It talks about the design process, the specs and then it ends, with just a note about what happened to the guns. It kinda feels unfinished. Cléééston (talk) 02:45, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]