Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of sunken battlecruisers/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 Giants2008 10:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of sunken battlecruisers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured list candidates/List of sunken battlecruisers/archive1

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a list of all of the battlecruisers that were either sunk by enemy action or scuttled by their own side for various reasons. It includes all those ships originally begun or built as battlecruisers, but were converted into aircraft carriers during the 1920s. Where known surviving relics have been listed, but a surprising number of ship have no relics. The tables are all sortable, alt text has been provided for the images and I believe that it meets the FLC criteria. And, if nothing else, it ought to be a refreshing change from all the sports and pop culture lists that reviewers usually see here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Underneath-it-All (talk) 20:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Magus732 (talk) 17:05, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per my comments in the previous review. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - mostly nitpicks:
  • Specify what kind of ship Bismarck is.
  • Why is Repulse described as "relatively old" and Hood isn't?
  • Maybe add a topic sentence to the 2nd para in the Losses section?
  • Same for the next para.
  • Specify who owned Akagi
• General disclaimer: I have done some work on this article in the past, including setting up the table format (as seen here). Parsecboy (talk) 13:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • All done except the topic sentences. None of the following paragraphs have them because they seemed rather redundant when I drafted them earlier. If you have ideas on phrasing or whatever, feel free to add them, but I couldn't come up with anything that sounded intelligent.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:18, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added one to the scuttling paragraph - how does that read? Also made a few miscellaneous fixes in that section. Please check those. Parsecboy (talk) 13:45, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looks good; inspired, I added one to the converted paragraph as well and made a few tweaks. See how they read.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:01, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Looks good to me. Moving to Support. Parsecboy (talk) 15:04, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I fixed an inline citation someone missed. Magus732 (talk) 17:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

• In tables with Casualties columns, they are sorting by the first number only, not the entire number. The same is true for the Date sunk columns, though the last table is the only one that really has a problem in this regard. This should be fixed before the list is promoted.
  • I'm not real familiar with sortable tables, but the code for the casualties column matches exactly the example used in WP:SORT, but doesn't do what's it's supposed to. And adding data-sort-type="date" to the date column does nothing, unlike the example in WP:SORT.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Use the sort templates (examples of which can be seen in many statistical FLs) and that should solve your problem. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:15, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Seems kind of stupid that I can't sort numbers or dates without using special tempaltes, but this _is_ Wiki.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Note 1: "Since neither their operators nor a significant number of naval historians did not/do not classify them as such". The "did not/do not" is affecting the meaning in a way that I don't think is intended. Leaving it out indicates that they didn't classify them that way, which I believe is the intention here.
  • Agreed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• A Flickr photo (ref 34) is not a reliable source for much of anything. Surely something better can be found for this claim? Giants2008 (Talk) 20:32, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that the ship's name is on the bell and it's part of an identifiable sequence taken in the memorial, it seems good enough. I can't find any other mention of the bell in a more conventional RS. Thanks for looking this over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that you're being unduly harsh on this cite, but whatever.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The map contains an inaccuracy: Hood was sunk of the South-West of Iceland, not the North coast as shown. I suspect that Australia should also be a few pixels to the north, but it's hardly a big deal. Nick-D (talk) 08:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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