Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/HMS Lion (1910)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

HMS Lion (1910)[edit]

Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 13:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)
Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... I believe that it meets all the requirements.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments

  • The lead needs to be expanded. For an article of this length (>30kb), WP:LEAD recommends three to four paragraphs.
    • True, but that's a real problem when the bulk of the article consists of a description of the ship and of the battles that she participated in. Nothing that lends itself to more than a sentence or two of summary. Do you have any concrete suggestions?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The lead is supposed to be a summary of the entire article. It currently doesn't mention anything about the design of the ship and skips very lightly over the description of the battles, which make up the bulk of the article. If I were writing the article, I would devote one paragraph to summarizing the design information, one to the service section up through the Battle of Dogger Bank and a third to the Battle of Jutland through scrapping. Dana boomer (talk) 02:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've expanded the lead. Most of the FA German battlecruiser articles now have a lead about what it is now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead, "except when she was refitting or under repair." The ship cannot refit herself, so "being refitted" or something along those lines would probably be a better word choice.
    • Done.
  • Propulsion, "These were her second set of propellers as the original propellers had been judged unsatisfactory after preliminary engine trials in January 1912." Any idea why they were judged unsatisfactory? Too small, not strong enough, etc.?
    • Roberts' account is kind of confusing. She actually ran her 1912 trials with the larger-area propellers which were not particularly satisfactory as propulsive efficiency was 43.5% and she only made 27.623 knots despite forcing the machinery to 76623 shp. The older BCs had efficiency ratings around 50%, so she was fitted with the smaller-area propellers originally intended for her, which proved to be even less-efficient. So the larger-area ones were reinstalled. The DNC believed that her rough bottom cost her .8 knots and didn't worry about it any further. All a bit more detail than is really necessary so maybe I'll just take that sentence out entirely.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propulsion. The first linking of shaft horse power should be moved to the first instance of the term.
    • Done
  • Armament, "added in January 1915 and another the following July 1915." I don't think you need the second 1915.
    • I agree.

Overall, the article looks quite good. I look forward to supporting when these issues have been addressed. Dana boomer (talk) 22:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your responses. I have changed to a support. Dana boomer (talk) 01:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • No problems with external links or alt text. Two dab links are reported to be present in the article, please locate and if at all possible remove these links. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done.
    • In the armor section you note that more armor was added after the bad experinces at jutland. Did the extra armour added after the battle of jutland compromise any of the battlecruiser's design features? The article doesn't say, but I would be interested in knowing.
      • It totalled only about 100 tons so had no real effect on speed, etc.
    • There were several instances of ship names in non-italic format, I corrected those I caught, but please do take another pass through an make sure this issue is dealt with here.
      • Done
    • Why didn't the admiralty want the battlecruiser's damaged status to be known? Was that a calculated move to deprive the enemy of information or was that do to embarrassment at the damage from German naval artillery?
      • More the latter as initial reports were of a British defeat and they didn't want to add any confirmation.
    • The battle of jutland gives a number of times, but I see no AM/PM reference to the initial times, can you clarify this for us please?
      • Done
    • The German fire was accurate from the beginning, but the British over-estimated the range as the German ships blended into the haze. What haze? The haze of morning? The Haze of Battle? The haze from the smoke of the gun barrels? Please specify this. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • It depends when you're talking about. Visibility is ordinarily pretty crappy in the North Sea to begin with and all the coal and cordite smoke didn't help matters any. I've tried to specify if these latter two things directly influenced things.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Passed this for GA and additional work since then seems to have improved further, so no issues. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/HMS_Lion_(1910)&oldid=1089031993"