Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/España-class battleship

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 Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:38, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

España-class battleship

[edit]
Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)


Something of a side project for me (and a break for y'all), this article covers the only Spanish dreadnought-type battleships, and the smallest vessels of that type. All three were lost, the first to a rock off Morocco, and the other two during the Spanish Civil War by a mine and an internal explosion, respectively. Thanks in advance to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 20:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments (very close to a support) with minor comments:

  • "The construction of the ships, particularly the third vessel, took so long due to shortages of material supplied by Great Britain during World War I, particularly armament." - It wasn't clear at this point in the lead that the construction of the ships had taken a long time, as the previous sentence referred to the construction of the class (each ship might have been constructed in only 12 months, for example, with gaps in between each). How about "The construction of the ships, particularly the third vessel, were significantly delayed due to shortages..."?
    • I guess I took it for granted that ships of any type shouldn't take over a decade to build. Your suggestion seems fine to me.
  • Worth linking Spanish economy?
    • Sure.
  • "seven 15,000 metric tons... battleships " - should this be "ton", as it is an adjective?
    • Yes, good catch.
  • " and three 10,000 t" - three what? Battleships?
    • Funny how your brain shuts off mid-sentence sometimes...
  • "United States with its first ship of the type" - "with its own new battleship, USS South Carolina." or something like that might be clearer (otherwise the two sets of "firsts" can read in a confusing way)
    • Sounds good.
  • "And due to rapid technological change at the time..." - I'd avoid starting a sentence with "And..."
    • See how it reads now.
  • " their freeboard was 4.6 m (15 ft) amidships" - freeboard is already linked above
    • I thought I caught all the duplicates...
  • "The ships reasonably stable compared to foreign designs," - a missing "were"
  • "and were considered cramped and unhygienic." - unless this is strictly an opinion (in which case we would need to say whose it was) you could just say "and were cramped and unhygienic"
    • Good point.
  • " The turbines drove three-bladed screws that were" - "screw propellers" would make it read more easily for the casual reader
    • Fixed.
  • " kept the latter's spotting top free from smoke interference" - it took me two goes to work out what a "spotting top" was.
  • "The turrets used hydraulics to operate" - "The turrets were operated by hydraulics"? Hchc2009 (talk) 16:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport

Support Comments

  • Still missing adjective code for the templates in the first paragraph of the development section.
    • Added.
  • I think SECN was formed by the three English companies, not really a conglomerate per se.
    • Good catch, corrected.
  • Link displace, torpedo bulkhead
    • Torpedo bulkhead is already linked in the first para of the armor section, added link to displacement.
  • 12 inches converted multiple times.
    • Removed the second instance.
  • Explain why they were obsolescent before completion.
    • How does the addition of "...due to rapid technological change—most significantly the rise of the superdreadnought battleships—and..." work?
  • You first give turret designations as letters, but in the modifications section you refer to them by numbers.
    • Letters removed - I think that was a remnant from the old version of the article.
  • Link the British AA guns used on Jaime I.
  • five years for the second, and seven years for the second. Headspace and timing error, I suspect.
    • Indeed, fixed.
  • Probably best to spell out the state names, and make sure that every book has one, other than New York.
    • Fixed.
  • No commons category for these ships?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's in the notes section.
      • Ooops.
  • If you add |lastauthoramp=1 to the book cite template they will display with the ampersand to match your usage in the notes. Otherwise Nikki will ding you for not having them match. :-( Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:46, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:07, 5 March 2014 (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/España-class_battleship&oldid=599560044"