Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/L 20e α-class battleship

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Biblioworm (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 01:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

L 20e α-class battleship

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

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

Another ancient article I assumed would be stuck at GA level (in fact, the one article I figured would be the stumbling block to turning this into a completely FA Featured Topic), but with the acquisition of some new sources, I've been able to develop it into something fairly decent. This covers the German post-Jutland battleship designs, which ultimately came to nothing as a result of their defeat in World War I. Thanks to those who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 17:32, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support: G'day, Nate, looks pretty good to me. I have the following suggestions/comments: AustralianRupert (talk) 05:15, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"World War I" is overlinked in the lead
- Fixed
in the lead, but the by that time: typo
- Good catch
there are no dabs or disambig links
20th century, German embarked: typo
- Fixed
the Ersatz Yorcks and heavier armor: missing possessive apostrophe in "Yorcks"
- That's not meant to be possessive
  - Indeed, not sure what I was thinking...sorry. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:20, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
the images lack alt text, and although this isn't a requirement, you might consider adding it as it can be useful for some users
- Added to both
in the infobox it mentions that the belt armor reduced to 130 mm (5.1 in), but I couldn't find these figures in the body
- Probably a typo - good catch
in the infobox it provides a range of 150 mm to 350 mm for the conning tower; however, the body indicates a range of 250 to 400 mm?
- Corrected
in the References, are there any page numbers for the chapter or article by Campbell in Preston's work?
- I'll have to check this tonight.
  - Page numbers added. Parsecboy (talk) 11:45, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
in the References, is there an ISSN or OCLC for the Mulligan work in The Journal of Military History? Also, are there any page numbers for this article?
- Added both. Thanks for your review! Parsecboy (talk) 19:22, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Comments~~: Some comments/suggestions below. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 08:19, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lead: I don't think it necessary to have the date of the Battle of Jutland or perhaps if you need some context rephrase to "fought later that year"
- Good idea
Background section: suggest replacing "be superior to either British class" with "be superior to these," since it is clear that the comparison is to the British ships
- Sounds good
Background section: "then also being developed", this phrasing doesn't sound quite right, suggest "then under development"
- Works for me
Development and cancellation: missing word here, "By 11 September 1918, the selected the" Perhaps RMA?
- Looks like Keith already fixed this.
Development and cancellation: note a, the first part doesn't explicitly refer to belt armour, but side armour. I assume the tapered bit is supposed to correspond to the "lower section". Also, the successive use of "below the waterline. Finally, the last sentence should that be 20e?
- Corrected, and yes, 20e is right.
Dupe link: belt armor (the second usage is on "armored belt")
- Fixed. Thanks Zawed. Parsecboy (talk) 12:08, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - All good, have added my support. Zawed (talk) 23:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I support this article's bid for A-Class. –Vami_IV✠ 14:21, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Vami. Parsecboy (talk) 12:09, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66

Probably a good idea to link full load in the infobox and in the main body.
- Done
Move boilers to the power parameter
- Fixed, good catch
And link battery in the infobox, or replace with casemate with a link.
- Done
significantly larger than the preceding Bayern-class battleships delete redundant preceding
- Done
along with variants with twin and quadruple Why the redundant twin reference? Do you mean more twin-gun turrets as well as quadruple turrets?
- Some of the variants had both twin and quadruple turrets - added a "both", hopefully that clarifies things a bit.
Nicely done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:51, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Sturm. Parsecboy (talk) 18:31, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - G'day Sturm can you clarify if you are supporting here? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:59, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - I believe that I can find it in my heart to do so, yes.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review the image licensing looks fine for the photo, and the NFUR looks good for the infobox diagram. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:50, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.