Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Lion-class battlecruiser

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Ian Rose (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 11:06, 11 February 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Lion-class battlecruiser[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

Lion-class battlecruiser (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The Lion-class battlecruisers were two of the more powerful battlecruisers deployed by the British during World War I. They spent most of the war deployed in home waters and were very active as they were the first responders to any sorties by their German counterparts. Lion was badly damaged during the Battles of Dogger Bank in 1915 and Jutland in 1916 while her sister Princess Royal was only lightly damaged at worst. Both ships were scrapped after the war as obsolete. I've considerably overhauled the article since it passed GA back in '10 and believe that it meets the A-class criteria. As usual I'm looking for infelicitous language, uses of AmEng, and and jargon terms that need to be linked or explained better before I submit this to FAC.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:09, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:HMS_Princess_Royal_LOC_18244u.jpg: when/where was this first published?
    • No idea. But it is part of the Bain collection with no known copyright restrictions.
  • File:HMS_Lion_hit_at_Jutland.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:51, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

  • In the lead and General characteristics sections, I'm finding the sequence of British battlecruisers hard to follow. The Lions succeeded the Indefatigable class, but where does the Invincible class fit in? I think the development of the classes could do with a bit more explanation.
    • Tweaked the wording a bit; see if it works for you.
  • Suggest 1909–1910 and similar per the new WP:DATERANGE guidance of years in full
    • Yeah, I hate that change.
  • there's some assumed knowledge about outer and inner shafts which lost me as I'm not a nautical cove. Is there a link that might help?
    • Tweaked, although I'm not sure if I should to specify that the ships had four propeller shafts as you kinda have to work it out for yourself. (2 × turbines, each driving 2 shafts = 4 shafts)
  • Suggest linking elevation
  • Suggest mentioning in the text that the secondary guns were single mounted
  • any information about how many torpedoes were carried?
    • Sorry no.
  • maybe link roll to ship motions?
    • Good idea
  • should foreward funnel be forward funnel? Or is this specific nautical lingo about directions on a ship? Then it is referred to as fore funnel. Perhaps use the same term?
    • Good catch.
  • more to come Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • is there any information about how many AA guns of each type were added to each ship during the war?
    • Done.
  • should after battery be aft battery?
  • how was Cöln suck, guns or torpedoes?
  • link Battle of the Falkland Islands in the body
  • this encounters
  • 15 nautical miles
  • Those, however, those
  • under tow back
  • under "repair" for the next three months
  • "gradually moved out of range" and "Beatty gradually turned" is a bit repetitive
  • damaged by "a" torpedo? or by torpedoes?
  • is dreadnoughtproject.org a reliable source?
    • Yes, note that they're mostly citing official manuals and the like. Furthermore one of the principal authors, Simon Harley, is a published authority on the RN.

That's me done. Good work, an interesting read. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Bounder[edit]

To follow shortly, aside from the two comments below:

  • I see that some of the page references are in the format 598–600, others are 130–38: these should be consistent throughout.
    • No, the first digit changed in your first example, thus requiring all three digits to avoid confusion.
  • "Authorized", "center" and "minimized" should be "Authorised", "centre" and "minimised"
    • Good catch.

More soon - The Bounder (talk) 13:04, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • As it's British English, it should probably be the First World War, rather than World War I
    • There's no national association with that term, as many British-published books also use World War I.
  • I'm not sure you need the "very" in "the very first"
    • Trying to clarify the sequence of British battlecruisers as per PM's comment above. Happy to take suggestions for rephrasing that bit, though.
      • The sequence doesn't change without the "very", it still refers to "the first". - The Bounder (talk) 09:03, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, removed.
  • Best to put the year in "sunk at the Battle of the Falkland Islands in December" to help.
  • Ditto on "the inconclusive Action of 19 August."
    • Concur on both as the year sequencing is hard to follow there.
  • "which the turret crewmen only had to follow" is probably best expressed as "which the turret crewmen followed".
    • Not sure I agree, because your wording doesn't reference how much simpler following the pointer was for them versus running the calculations themselves.

Done to the end of "Fire-control": more to come in the morning. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 22:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking forward to them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing:

  • "at a total cost of £68,170": it's a little unclear if this is the cost for refitting just the Princess Royal, or it and the Lion.
    • "Both ships" and "total cost" make it clear enough, I think.
  • I think I'm right in saying that "Furthermore" is one of those words that should carry a comma after them if they are at the start of the sentence
    • OK.
  • There are eight uses of "gun(s)" in the first paragraph of the Modifications section, including four in the first sentence. It may be worth using a couple of synonyms to break the weight of them.
    • Done.
  • The Raid on Scarborough section needs a year
    • Still 1914.

Down to the end of "Dogger Bank": more to follow shortly. - The Bounder (talk) 09:03, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Finishing:

  • There is quite a lot of information in the sentence "On 31 May 1916, Princess Royal was the flagship of the 1st BCS, under the command of Rear-Admiral Osmond Brock,[38] which had put to sea with the rest of the Battlecruiser Fleet, led by Beatty in Lion, to intercept a sortie by the High Seas Fleet into the North Sea." – it may be best to split it in two for clarity.
    • Good idea.
  • Is "returned the favour" not a bit too casual for an encyclopaedia?
    • Reworded.

That's the lot from me. Nice article. – The Bounder (talk) 16:03, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review. That's exactly the sort of stuff that I was looking for.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:30, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose. My pleasure - a nicely put together article. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 18:22, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry, just looking through post-support, you should still add a year to the Raid on Scarborough section. You know it's still 1914, but a new section should carry the year to help readers. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 07:07, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hawkeye7[edit]

  • The lead says that at Jutland "Lion suffered a serious cordite fire that could have destroyed the ship" but the body of the article does not say this.
    • Clarified.
  • Do we need to capitalise "Construction Programme"?
    • Yes, proper nouns.
  • "'Q' turret was located amidships and was unable to fire directly aft" I can't see how it could fire forward either.
  • "both Lion and Princess Royal had been hit twice" suggest "were hit twice"
  • "broadside" and "magazine" are linked twice.
  • Link Washington Naval Treaty in the last line

Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:33, 10 February 2017 (UTC) All done, thanks for catching these little problems.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:37, 10 February 2017 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Lion-class_battlecruiser&oldid=764865857"