Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Minotaur-class cruiser (1906)/archive1
Minotaur-class cruiser (1906)
[edit]
These armoured cruisers were built for the Royal Navy in the decade before the First World War. Two were stationed abroad when the war began and unsuccessfully attempted to hunt down German ships. Returning home, all three were assigned to the Grand Fleet during the Battle of Jutland in 1916. Defence was sunk there by the concentrated fire of several German capital ships. The two surviving ships were sold for scrap after the war.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Support Comments from Jim Minor point: why not just link cwt instead of bothering with a footnote: Major point, and what is stopping me supporting at present; there seems to be no consistency in section headings (even when they are talking about the same things, eg service history/career). I'm no expert, so you will have to convince me that there is some logic to this before I can support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
- Simply linking the abbreviation was criticized at FAC for another British ship, so I've added the note ever since. Headings standardized.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
- One minor nitpick is that in the articles for the individual ships, you have included the ship's name in the caption, which is contra mos because images are assumed to be of the article's subject unless otherwise stated. That's an easy fix, so changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
- This nom is proving to be all kinds of educational as no one's ever pointed that out to me. But since the captions here are more a bit more descriptive than just the ship's name, I don't think that that's relevant here. Thanks for reviewing the articles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:22, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
- As long as the captions are a conscious decision, I'm fine with that Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- This nom is proving to be all kinds of educational as no one's ever pointed that out to me. But since the captions here are more a bit more descriptive than just the ship's name, I don't think that that's relevant here. Thanks for reviewing the articles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:22, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
- One minor nitpick is that in the articles for the individual ships, you have included the ship's name in the caption, which is contra mos because images are assumed to be of the article's subject unless otherwise stated. That's an easy fix, so changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
- Support but I would love to see a GT on 1st Cruiser Squadron. Nergaal (talk) 01:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'd like to be able to do one, but I'd need much better information on the squadron's actual history. All I could do now would be lists of ships that fell under it at various times.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Support - looks to be up to your usual standard, Sturm. Keep up the great work. Parsecboy (talk) 18:04, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- Closed with a consensus to promote to Good Topic. - GamerPro64 14:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC)