Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of battlecruisers of the Royal Navy/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 02:31, 22 October 2010 [1].
List of battlecruisers of the Royal Navy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
- Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because it is just about finished with a MilHist ACR and I believe that it meets all the FLC criteria. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose. I recently copyedited this one, but there wasn't much to do; Sturm's prose is straightforward, just like it should be. My British English isn't great, but John and Diannaa also worked on this one. - Dank (push to talk) 02:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 11:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jim Sweeney (talk) 01:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Can years be added to all captions? Ruslik_Zero 16:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sort of. I added a date to the Indefatigable class caption, but I don't know when the photos of Lion or Queen Mary were taken. I can narrow it down a bit, but I'm not sure that a date range over a couple of years is really all that helpful.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You can use a better image of Lion, which was taken in 1915. Ruslik_Zero 19:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done
- You can use a better image of Lion, which was taken in 1915. Ruslik_Zero 19:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sort of. I added a date to the Indefatigable class caption, but I don't know when the photos of Lion or Queen Mary were taken. I can narrow it down a bit, but I'm not sure that a date range over a couple of years is really all that helpful.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - an excellent list with no problems I could find. Parsecboy (talk) 12:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - looks good! - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 04:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support great work on this, Sturm. Buggie111 (talk) 22:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
Most people quoted in Wikipedia lack an article. Has nothing to do with notability per se. He's a published author, nothing incongruous about it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'll be jiggered. I just spent a lot more time on this than I should have, and came to two conclusions: references to cars are much more likely to avoid "speed" as a synonym for "top speed" than I expected, and references to ships are much more likely to use "speed" (meaning "top speed") than I expected. For the first 20 ghits on "ship "top speed"" where it's reasonable to assume some professional copyediting and where there were more than just a few random mentions of speed, every one of them uses "speed" synonymously with "top speed". I don't know what to make of that. On the question at hand: I don't see a problem with adding "top" before the key; it's not like the phrase "top speed" is unknown among aficionados or historians. - Dank (push to talk) 14:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man (talk) 11:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs) |
---|
;Comments
Apart from my concern at a number of apparent "drive-by supporters" I have some concern with the table coding.
Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
While I have not thoroughly reviewed this (and have found what I've done excessively laborious) I now no-longer have concerns with the tables. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
- Can you add a citation to "Suspended 9 March 1917" on one of the tables?--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 21:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. I've made the citations in rows of three instead of two. (They seemed to be getting rather long with only two columns) Feel free to revert if you think it's ugly or something :)--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 23:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's fine, I'm pretty indifferent either way.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. I've made the citations in rows of three instead of two. (They seemed to be getting rather long with only two columns) Feel free to revert if you think it's ugly or something :)--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 23:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support With the assumption that all other issues above have been addressed.--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 00:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, no additional issues from me, similar to White Shadows, my support is based upon remaining issues raised being addressed, but it is only a few tweaks away. Nice work on this! Harrias talk 22:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I know this is nitpicking, but could you make the top template a bit more compact? Try to reduce the empty space, or even reduce the font size. Nergaal (talk) 04:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- it's not mine, but I'll look at it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Shrunk. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- it's not mine, but I'll look at it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Per above. Ruslik_Zero 19:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.