Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Lyon-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 Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 11:20, 16 August 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Lyon-class battleship

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Parsecboy (talk)

Lyon-class battleship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/Lyon-class battleship/archive1

The Lyon-class battleships were the 1915 tranche of a French naval expansion program begun in 1912. Their design had not been finalized before the beginning of the First World War in August 1914 and their consequent cancellation. Parsecboy and I have recently overhauled this article in preparation for this review. As usual, we'd like for reviewers to check for any stray bits of BritEng, unlinked or unexplained jargon and infelicitous prose in anticipation of a FAC.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

• Why is there no full load in the infobox?
  • We don't have the figure - it was probably never calculated given work on the ships never began (or if it was, the estimate hasn't survived)
• Link kW.
  • Done
• would have followed on 1 April 1915 I do not believe we should use here 1915.
  • Good catch
• The primary alterations was that the upper strake of armor intended to protect the secondary armament was reduced from 160 millimeters (6.3 in) to 100 millimeters (3.9 in) to compensate for the additional armor below the waterline to better protect the hull against "diving" shells A long sentence without a comma maybe add at least one or split the sentence.
  • I split the sentence
• The sources are appeared to be of high quality and reliable.

I think that's anything. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:46, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks CPA! Parsecboy (talk) 16:58, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

• No proplem mate. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:45, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

• Hey PM could you please have a look in this article? If you do then this one is ready to go. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:42, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:23, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments by Kges1901

Interesting article. Some comments:

Design

• and settled on one of the two 34 cm proposals --> and one of the two 34 cm proposals was selected
  • Done
• be modified to use --> to be modified to use
  • Done
• (50 kg (110 lb) more than the existing shell) - Works better as a clause in itself with commas around it to avoid having parentheses next to each other
  • Good point
• particularly for the army --> emphasizing the army
  • Done

Characteristics

• Perhaps the range of the figures for the ship drafts can be given in the infobox for consistency?
  • Good idea
• What type of displacement is the 29,600 metric t? Is it normal or full load, or is that not in the source?
  • Not in the source, unfortunately
• Beginning before work Redundant beginning as you've got 'begun' in the same sentence
  • Fixed
• hull of battleships --> hulls of battleships
  • Good catch
• Does 'through the water' mean underwater?
  • Indeed - fixed
• that could accurate through --> that could be accurate through
  • Fixed
• The primary alterations --> The primary alteration
  • Fixed
• 160 millimeters (6.3 in) to 100 millimeters (3.9 in) Can be condensed as you've done below with the graduated slope of the below-waterline hull thickness Kges1901 (talk) 00:08, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No, the 160mm figure was from the Normandies, not a tapering in thickness as is the case with the belt armor - have clarified the text. Thanks Kges. Parsecboy (talk) 15:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
• All ok now. Supporting. Kges1901 (talk) 12:05, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments from AustralianRupert

Support: Not much from me. I have a few minor comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 11:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• no dabs, no dup links, ext links work (no action required)
• suggest adding alt text: [1]
• the lead says the war broke out in August, but the body says July
  • Good catch.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
• the information in the infobox appears to be covered consistently in the body (no action required)
• in the References, is there an ISSN or similar for the Journal of the United States Artillery?
• another image would be great to break up the text of the Characteristics section if available (suggestion only)
  • I wish that there was something out of copyright for us to add. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
    • No worries, added my support now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:49, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Source review

• Secondary sources used are high quality RS for the subject and the one contemporary source is used appropriately, and with attribution. Kges1901 (talk) 10:10, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

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.