Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/HMS Princess Royal (1911)/archive3

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ucucha 13:53, 7 October 2011 [1].

HMS Princess Royal (1911)

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the requirements. I've made a few corrections based on last year's nominations and I trust that the third time is the charm as it mostly appeared to run out of time. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't italicize location in The Times refs. Day of week is not necessary
Be consistent in how you notate page ranges - for example, why "376–384" but "386–96"?
Where is Greenwich?
Be consistent in whether states are abbreviated or not. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All done, except in cases like 398–402.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Check FN 48, and standardize "UK" vs "New Zealand". Otherwise good. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done and thanks for the quick response.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer, having reviewed the changes made since I reviewed this for the previous FAC. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:11, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images check out and are carefully documented. File:HMS Princess Royal LOC 18244u.jpg could do with Template:Information, and File:Derfflinger firing full salvo.jpg should be tagged with {{Do not move to Commons}}. The picture of the Blücher going down is rather harrowing... J Milburn (talk) 00:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support~~Comments~~ [from Kirk]

British class/ship naming conventions don't make a lot of sense to me and probably less to the average reader; you might want to explicitly say in the article the ship was named after Princess Louise, The Princess Royal, or per the infobox, named after The Princess Royal generally and sponsored by Princess Louise. Either way, the namesake needs a citation (sponsor looks ok).
- At this point I'm not sure if it was named for Princess Louise specifically or not. I'm not inclined to think so, but it is a parallel title to that of Prince of Wales as the king's eldest daughter, although granted far less often.
  - I've confirmed that it was named after the title and not Princess Louise specifically. Cite added to the lede.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cost, conning tower armor uncited.
- Fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~I think you should specify in the infobox armament 'as built'.~~
- Done.
~~I don't think you really need notes 1-3 (but I assume there's some kind of history there...)~~
- I tend not to assume that people know naval jargon.
~~I don't know if the image of the 3-inch 20 cwt AA gun is really helpful and it makes a odd text sandwich in the spot its in. An image of Princess Louise would be a good replacement.~~ Kirk (talk) 20:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it odd? It's right in the armament section. I see little value to adding a picture of its namesake. And free-use pictures of the ship are oddly scarce. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Its better placed now; the caption threw me (with the HMAS Australia). Kirk (talk) 23:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Great work; support. Kirk (talk) 23:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~pending the answer to these two questions~~: [from Karanacs]

Why the change of unit in this sentence - "It had a maximum ceiling of 10,000 ft (3,000 m), but an effective range of only 1,200 yards (1,100 m)."
- Altitudes are customarily given in feet/meters, but gunnery ranges are usually given in yards/meters.
  - I thought that was the case, but it really jarred me (a non-ship-technical person) to see the mix in one sentence. Perhaps this can be reworded to be two sentences? Karanacs (talk) 15:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Splitting the sentence into two loses the contrast, so I've decided that the least worst was to change the effective range into feet.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - FWIW, that would be my call too. - Dank (push to talk) 18:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
how does the 0.7% hit rate compare? Is that really really bad, just a little bad, or average? Are there any explanations for why the hit rate was so low? Karanacs (talk) 14:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The best that I can do without violating OR/SYNTH is to provide hit percentages for a couple of other ships to allow the reader to draw his/her own conclusions.Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Added comparison to Lion's performance.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Couldn't we do with just a little explanation for non-experts about exactly what a battlecruiser was? --John (talk) 20:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's linked already and none of the other German or British battlecruiser articles have done anything more.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Minor copyedit from me but generally prose looks good, as do structure, detail, referencing and supporting materials. Some relatively minor things: [from Ian Rose]

Re. the Battle of Heligoland Bight subsection, while context is admirable, not sure we really need so much in that first para as practically none of it seems to refer to this ship directly.
- I trimmed the last bit, but the rest is applicable to the ship because none of the accounts detail her actions in detail.
Grammatical pedantry: re. Jutland, you begin On 31 May 1916, Princess Royal was the flagship of Rear-Admiral Osmond Brock and the 1st BCS under Beatty's overall command; they had put to sea with the rest of the Battlecruiser Fleet... -- Who is "they" meant to be here, Brock and 1st BCS or simply 1st BCS? If the latter, should be "it" as BCS is singular.
- It's Brock and the 1st BCS.
Re. Jutland again, same situation as with Heliogoland above, the two paras beginning The German battlecruisers made their own turn north in pursuit... fail to make any mention at all of our subject ship, which suggests they could benefit from trimming. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll have to think about this. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Added some more specific details as to her actions during this period.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - All that works for me, adding a bit more on the subject to the Jutland section was another (even better) way to deal with my concern. Well I think it should be third time lucky for you with this FAC -- well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.