Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Lion-class battleship/archive1
The Lion-class battleships were a group of six fast battleships ordered by the Royal Navy. Two were laid down just before Britain entered the Second World War in 1939, but were scrapped in 1942; the others were never laid down. They would have been larger versions of the preceding King George V-class ships, with 16-inch (406 mm) guns. The design was modified in light of war experience in 1942, but no substantial work was done. There was a proposal in 1941 to modify one of the suspended ships into a hybrid battleship–aircraft carrier with two 16-inch gun turrets and a flight deck. The Director of Naval Gunnery's assessment was that "The functions and requirements of carriers and of surface gun platforms are entirely incompatible ...the conceptions of these designs ...is evidently the result of an unresolved contest between a conscious acceptance of aircraft and a subconscious desire for a 1914 Fleet ...these abortions are the results of a psychological maladjustment." Preliminary work for a new battleship design began in 1944 and continued for the next year or so until the navy realised that the ships would be unaffordable in the post-war financial environment. (Full article...)
Just a suggested blurb ... thoughts and edits are welcome. It's over 1025 characters because I couldn't find a suitable free image ... is there one? - Dank (push to talk) 02:51, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
- I trimmed the sentence with the sizes and tweaked the intro slightly. I haven't been able to find a free image either.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:15, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks Sturm. Per the recent discussion at WT:TFA#Is there a copy-editing process for older articles?, a longer blurb would be better. I'm not attached to the sentence you removed, but is there another one that could be inserted? - Dank (push to talk) 13:56, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
- Had to clarify which ships actually began construction and added the great quote about the hybrid carrier/battleship as it's quite a bit more pungent that we're used to seeing in official documents. Dunno if that puts it over the usual blurbage limit, but I hope that you keep it. Feel free to tweak to suit, as I'm possibly too much in love with the parallelism in the revised third sentence.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:36, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
- Well, that's 1403 ... can you get it under 1200? - Dank (push to talk) 17:19, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
- It's down to about 1150, though I forget the exact rules for TFA blurbs. See how it reads though I can't see how I can retain my loverly sentence and keep it under 1200.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:07, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
- I added "The Director of Naval Gunnery" per your article text ... looks good to me. It's not clear yet what length people are looking for without images, but I think this will work. - Dank (push to talk) 18:53, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
- It's down to about 1150, though I forget the exact rules for TFA blurbs. See how it reads though I can't see how I can retain my loverly sentence and keep it under 1200.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:07, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
- Well, that's 1403 ... can you get it under 1200? - Dank (push to talk) 17:19, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
- Had to clarify which ships actually began construction and added the great quote about the hybrid carrier/battleship as it's quite a bit more pungent that we're used to seeing in official documents. Dunno if that puts it over the usual blurbage limit, but I hope that you keep it. Feel free to tweak to suit, as I'm possibly too much in love with the parallelism in the revised third sentence.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:36, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks Sturm. Per the recent discussion at WT:TFA#Is there a copy-editing process for older articles?, a longer blurb would be better. I'm not attached to the sentence you removed, but is there another one that could be inserted? - Dank (push to talk) 13:56, 11 May 2019 (UTC)