Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/HMS Lion (1910)/archive2

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 Karanacs 17:01, 18 May 2010 [1].

HMS Lion (1910)

HMS Lion (1910) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/HMS Lion (1910)/archive1
• Featured article candidates/HMS Lion (1910)/archive2

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I have added the missing information that caused it to fail earlier as incomplete. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, Sunderland is a disambiguation page. ceranthor 00:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fixed it. No dead external links. Ucucha 00:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I've made a handful of copyediting tweaks, all very minor. Only one remaining issue: the caption and the alt text for the plan are in direct disagreement. Other than that, looks to be in great shape. Well done, as usual. Maralia (talk) 03:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the tweaks, good catch on the left/right issue in the image.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Nice work! - The Bushranger (talk) 16:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support WRT Cr. 1a. A few queries:

1. The design image is detail-rich and tiny. Can you boost it significantly in size? What about 250px or more? Pity the subheadings are pushed over, but it can't be helped, I suppose.
   • Enlarged to 300px, but I'm not sure that it really helps much.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. "forty-two" and "fourteen", but "10"? Then "four inches" but "9 inches". Audit required.
   • Most of these are artifacts of the conversion template, but I've caught a few missed ones and deconverted several that had already been done earlier.
3. "She was built without any anti-aircraft guns..."—possibly remove "any"?
   • Done
4. There's stylistic latitude for the use of optional commas, but in a long sentence without competing commas, I'd lash out: "A single QF 3 inch 20 cwt AA gun on a high-angle Mark II mount was added in January 1915, and another in the following July. This had a maximum depression of ..."—"these"? And plural further on?
   • Done
5. No big deal, and your choice, but I'd be inclined to use "a minute" rather than resorting to the Latinate "per minute". A lot of people use "per", though.
   • More casual use seems to be "a minute", but the military commonly uses "per".--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. Any way of avoiding the jostling parentheses? "at close range (under 6,000 yards (5.5 km))". Possibly a dash before under instead? Unsure.
   • Done
7. Where did Massie get this information from? "The German Navy had decided on a strategy of bombarding British towns on the North Sea coast in an attempt to draw out the Royal Navy and destroy elements of it in detail." Just checking the reliability of an author you cite a lot. Consider removing "in an attempt".
   • The phrase has been removed. According to Tarrant the German raids early in the war had the goal of forcing the British to disperse their forces to defend their entire coastline to increase their chance of cutting off and destroying portions of the Grand Fleet.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
8. "Relative position" image: Is this your diagram? If so, could you possibly boost the size of the text? The font is not well displayed at small size, either. Is it "130 sm"? What is sm? Add "hours" to the caption, since it's a little separate from the timings in the main prose? The "shellfire" image looks like a stain on my shirt at that size. Maybe the res is unsuitable for enlarging, though.
   • No, its not my diagram, but I can ask the author to change sm (sea miles) to nm or nmi. I enlarged the image to 300px and it's actually readable now. I enlarged the shellfire image to 250px, but that really doesn't do much. Lion is still just a smudge, but that's OK as the image's primary value is to illustrate just how crappy the visibility was during the battle.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
9. Not possible to use the multiplication sign? 30-by-24-inch (760 mm × 610 mm) Tony (talk) 08:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
   • Now this is odd, I used "x" in the template and it output "by". Changing it to "by" yielded "by" again, so I've changed them all.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

• I think Ed must have done your conversions because they need consistency. A mix of English first with metric and Metric with English. Spotted one missing conversion too. --Brad (talk) 22:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • German weapons are given as they designated them, i.e. metric. I'll hunt for the missing conversion, maybe it's one of those that I'd clean-out earlier.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the compliment, Brad. ;) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support with only one qualm—Maritime Quest isn't reliable. Otherwise, sources and images all check out. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe, but they're posting a photo with a caption and a source, not making things up out of whole cloth. I suppose that they could be any well-dressed group of Europeans, but the naval officers, etc. lend the caption some credibility.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • True, but unreliable sources aren't supposed to be in FA's, either. I'll leave this for others to decide; my support still stands. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:28, 5 May 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.