These "epoch" warships were the first dreadnoughts fielded by the United States Navy. Congressionally-mandated weight restrictions (some two to three thousand tons less than the earlier British Dreadnought) were the impetus for some of the class' many innovations, but they also led to their uselessness during the First World War—their comparatively slow speed limited them to convoy escorting and home defense, tasks also assigned to completely obsolete battleships. Their ignominious careers were ended alongside dozens of other warships by the Washington Naval Treaty.
This article's first FAC was not promoted after I ran into several real-life obligations and was unable to address the worthy criticism. Thankfully, I have much more time now. While the style of this article may be a bit unusual, I've made many of the same choices (including the collapsed infobox) in previous FACs, such as Pennsylvania-class battleship. My thanks in advance for all constructive criticism. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 22:25, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for the first FAC. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 22:45, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Why does some "courtesy" caption links go directly to the source and others only to the image description page?
File:Brassey's1912_South-Carolina.png: needs US PD tag, and if the artist is unknown how do we know they died more than 70 years ago? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:33, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Provide a more exact scrapping or disposal date in the Ships table.
Specifications for Possible need to use US spellings not the template's default British spelling.
Figures for draft differ between Specifications section and infobox.
lower than HMS Dreadnought, the namesake British ship built shortly before the South Carolinas This is awkward.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:41, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Sturm. I've seen these comments and will address them as soon as I can. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 16:28, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Replies are in order:
@1 and 2, it's a stylistic choice. The images and thumbnail size are like postage stamps, with little detail open to being seen. I like seeing details w/o clicking. :-) As for the collapsed infobox, it's to allow more room for imagery. All of the specifications are available with either one click or farther down in prose form.
I see absolutely no reason why the infobox image should differ from the standard 300px. I'm far more willing to grant much more freedom to vary sizes for later images.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:15, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
The first, and most important bit of info, that the line drawing will convey is the general layout of the ship, such as turret and mast locations, etc. The only thing that you lose by using the default size is armor thickness and the stuff at the bottom, which should arguably be cropped as redundant to the infobox. This image dominates the entire article and for no good purpose, IMO.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:15, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
I'll cut down the line drawing image; you're probably right in it dominating the surrounding text. I still don't agree on the infobox image, but can we compromise at 350px? Ed[talk][majestic titan] 20:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
What do you really gain by the extra 50 pixels? Most of what I can see now at the current size is the silhouette of the ship, details of the cage masts, some boats and the gun casemates. Most all of that will be retained if you use the standard 300 px size.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
I've gone with "its" to be more formal. The only "she" is in the quote from Friedman, which I'm not allowed to change!
That's a really good point, especially in the specifications. I'll be addressing this.
Tony or Dank: eastern seaboard or Eastern Seaboard (of the US)? I think Sturm's right here.
Eastern Seaboard. - Dank (push to talk) 23:36, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Dank—do you have any advice on vertical-triple-expansion vs vertical triple-expansion and the last point? Ed[talk][majestic titan] 23:33, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm generally not comfortable with hyphen advice (except in cases where we can just look it up). If you're asking about "its", just the fact that AP Stylebook recommends it means that 90% of copyedited text in this country goes with "its". But I buy the argument that "her" might convey a certain intimacy with the source material ... and whether that's the tone you're going for is up to you. - Dank (push to talk) 00:00, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Will do asap. DANFS gives much more detailed info on their fates that I didn't include for some unknown reason... Complete.
I'll pull out Friedman from my book box and double-check it for the draft figures. Complete.
Honestly, I've been staring at that sentence too. Tony/Dank, any thoughts? Ed[talk][majestic titan] 23:24, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
@Sturmvogel 66: I've either replied or addressed all of your points, with the exception of the state abbreviations and the hyphens. How do they look? Ed[talk][majestic titan] 22:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Simply as a point for future use, the template for knot automatically converts into kmh and mph; save yourself some unnecessary typing.
I think that it's a good idea to link terminology like knot and nautical mile in both the infobox and main body.
When people read engine I believe that they're automatically gonna think internal combustion engine so you simply can't say just triple-expansion engine; you have to specify that it's a steam engine.
I don't think that it's well covered in Friedman, but at least a mention of how the Americans moved their gun sights in the main gun turrets to either the side or the front of the turret (I forget which, off-hand) is worthy of mention. It was almost another decade before the Brits and Japanese stopped using roof-top gunsights that weakened the roof armor and could deafen the gunners in lower turrets when the superfiring guns fired above them.
I fixed a couple of the points above for you and cut back a couple of the unnecessary decimal places as well as I tend to be fussier about specifications, etc. than most. Still have to get to the meat of the article, though.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:15, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I learned something today.
Point well-taken. Thanks for fixing this in the article.
I'll work on finding a mention; there may be one in Battleship Design and Development.
early years a little imprecise, how about first decade?
Provide ranks for all serving officers like Capps, Taylor, etc.
Capps is done. I don't see a rank for Taylor (for 1905) beyond "naval constructor". I assume I need to dig deeper.
Be consistent in referring to all measurements of the same type, like gun bore diameters, either all spelled out or none. This overrides the normal rule about numbers less than 10 being spelled out.
I believe I've fixed these.
Convert 11 inch.
Watch for overlinks.
Do you have Ucucha's script for checking for overlinks? If not add this.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Trials section is a bit too detailed, IMO, other than the damage sustained during them. Done up to service history.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. I could trim it down a bit around the damage, but then we lose the context. South Carolina's trials are only a few sentences long. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 03:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Dude, you've got more information on the trials than you do for their armament and armor, combined! We're an encyclopedia and not supposed to include every fact that you run across just because we're not paper. I've been having a discussion with another editor over on the talk page of HMS Indomitable where he wants to add the ship's displacement and rpm count to the trials info. Simply because it's been made available by one author, even though it's been ignored by all the rest. The average reader doesn't care about that info, nor will zhe care about the dates of the subsequent trials or even the various types of trials conducted.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Still waiting on response/action on image issues. Why credit every image, why so big, why link to NARA more than once, etc.?
Yes, but tell me where I should cut it down? Michigans trials are documented because of the multiple damages. Otherwise there's one paragraph about the launch ceremonies, a short paragraph listing what the builders had to meet on the trials, one sentence on Michigan's commissioning, then a few sentences on South Carolina's trials and commissioning. Conceivably, I could remove some information in the last paragraph, but cutting anything from the Michigan paragraph would cause the damages to lose context (hence my previous comment, if that wasn't clear!).
I think that you're overthinking things; it's actually pretty easy. Delete the entire short para about the specifics of the trials and just say that Michigan ran aground during the trials, damaging her propellers. And then give the top speed made by each ship. I cover trials in about two sentences in my articles, so the readers lose nothing by compressing this absurd amount of detail down that much. The funny thing is that Damwiki1 (talk) who wants even more details added about trials would probably say that you've got too much of the wrong sort of info here as you don't mention ship displacement, horsepower and rpm counts. To sum up I normally cover construction and trials in a paragraph or so, so I don't see any issues with in doing the same here. IMO, you've given far too much weight to the trials than they deserve since it's about 2/3s the length of the entire service section.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:32, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
@Sturmvogel 66: Sorry for not seeing this sooner; I didn't realize that you replied in-line. I've shortened the paragraph in question! Ed[talk][majestic titan] 02:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
On the images, I do it because NARA has uploaded images specifically for this article. I've done it in previous FAs of mine with no complaint. As for the sizes, WP:IMGSIZE says that there should be a "good reason" to do so. That's not a high hurdle to clear. The postage stamp-sized default thumbnail size does not show the detail that I'd like for historical images that are of this high of quality (in pixels and clarity). Ed[talk][majestic titan] 02:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
I counted two or so images that Dominic loaded for you this year. The other images are usually far older. I have no particular issue mentioning the source if they were special requests, but the others should not be mentioned as per the usual practice. I regret not mentioning the image issues in the Pennsy-class article, but you were so insistent on the hidden infobox that I figured it was a waste of time, much as it seems to be proving here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:32, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
I've named them all to be consistent, but if you're adamant on this point, I can remove the non-special crediting. The hidden infobox is now gone. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 05:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ This is all the info I gave on the Ise class for their trials, from the propulsion section: Both ships comfortably exceeded their designed speed of 23 knots (43 km/h; 26 mph) during their sea trials; Ise reached 23.6 knots (43.7 km/h; 27.2 mph) from 56,498 shp (42,131 kW) and Hyūga exceeded that with 24 knots (44 km/h; 28 mph) from 63,211 shp (47,136 kW). I see no need for all of the excessive detail on their trials. Michigan's grounding arguably could be covered in the individual ship article rather than here, but typically I give dates for their trials in the individual ship articles as it's not particularly relevant for a class article, IMO. Why do you think that this plethora of info is worth including here? Simply because it's available? As far as I can tell the info here exceeds the coverage given the trials of virtually every other ship class article on Wiki, battleship or not. IMO the coverage that you had on the trials in your last FA, the Pennsylvania-class BBs, is about right.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
@Sturmvogel 66: ... none of those ships were damaged on their trial runs, were they? :-) I've shortened both paragraphs in question more. I'd like to keep the short paragraph with what they were contractually obligated to do, as that's rather important information. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 00:44, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
The detailed info on the format of the trials is pretty much the same for what the RN did and is likely similar for all navies of the period, so why is it important for these ships as opposed to any other class? If there was more organized information as to what was involved for more navies, I could see a worthwhile comparative article on the different practices for trials of different navies. That could cover differences between various measured miles, French and Italian practices of running trials without armament to increase reported top speeds, use of best-quality coals and additional stokers for the RN, etc. But as an isolated bit in one article, the info is mildly interesting at best and lacks context. Honestly, I think that you're enamored with this info because you've not seen it anywhere else and thus think that it's worth incorporating into this article. Remember Wiki's scope, we don't add every single bit of info that we discover; we have to pick and choose the most important bits lest general readers get bogged down in a forest of details and miss the important stuff. And I think that the trials info is far less important than the development history, technical specs and service histories of this class. Personally, I wouldn't bother with Michigan's grounding here, but I can see your point and have no problem with it remaining.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:19, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm not enamored (and frankly find that a little insulting); I do think that contractual requirements might be important in the context of the class' history, and left out plenty of information in sources when writing the story. But I give up and have removed the paragraph. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 04:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
@Sturmvogel 66: I'm ready to close this (with alacrity!) unless you've anything more to add... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Go ahead. While I still don't like the oversized image in the infobox and the credits in the images, they're not worth opposing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you again for your hard work here, Sturmvogel 66. While we (obviously) don't always agree, your input is always appreciated. :-) Ed[talk][majestic titan] 17:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
To the delegates, since the editor hasn't responded to comments in almost a month, I recommend that this review be archived so he can resubmit when he has more free time to deal with the issues raised above.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Hey all, sorry for the lack of a response. I was forced to move about a month ago and we just got Internet at the new place two days ago. I have time blocked out this weekend to respond to all of the above points. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 15:27, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
OK, fair enough. Request withdrawn, just say that you're temporarily incommunicado, next time.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
As I said in the first FAC, I don't care for the collapsed infobox. I understand that you want room for images, but even with the box expanded, there's plenty of room for the photo of New Hampshire before it runs into the line drawing at the bottom of the section. You'd need a rather wide screen for that to be a problem, and you could shorten the infobox some by removing the cost figures (which are next to useless to readers, since they cannot be easily converted to 2014 dollars) and the note on the source of figures (which could easily be converted into a footnote and placed elsewhere, such as the "General characteristics" line of the box). You could also stand to lose the ship type field as well.
Done. I wrestled with the sourcing note as well, but I don't really have another place to put it, as it applies to the whole infobox. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 05:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
The photo of New Hampshire should really be on the left side, since it's right-facing.
I also think the line-drawing is rather too large - you might be better served by reducing it to 3-400px and moving it into the design section (and shifting the quote box down). An added bonus is that this would further reduce the need for collapsing the box, especially coupled with moving the photo of New Hampshire to the left.
"As the superfiring arrangement used a great amount of space within each already-limited ship..." - did it use more space than the 5 turrets of Dreadnought or the eight of Satsuma? Or more compared to the Italian Dante Alighieri or Russian Gangut? What I'm getting at is, was it the superfiring arrangement that took up more space or simply the fact that it was twice as many 12" guns, with twice as many corresponding magazines, shell rooms, etc. that caused the space crunch?
It was a combination of factors. The superfiring/centerline arrangement took up space that had been previously devoted to boilers, for instance. The ship could have been made bigger/longer to compensate, I suppose, but the congressional displacement limit would be broken by a larger ship. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 05:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Right, but what I'm getting at is whether the superfiring arrangement took up more of the ship's volume than 4 turrets in a different arrangement (say the lozenge of the Invincibles) would have taken up. As it reads now, it suggests that four turrets in a superfiring arrangement took up more space than the equivalent number of heavy guns in Invincible - which is to say, the internal volume problem was one of arrangement, rather than the simple fact that 4 large barbettes/shell rooms/magazines/etc. requires more room than 2 of them. Does my question make sense? Parsecboy (talk) 15:24, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
@Parsecboy: I don't think we're making it clear to each other. :-) First, Friedman doesn't say what would use up more space. However, in a ship that was already shortened due to congressional weight restrictions and being designed by individuals who were used to only having to place two main turrets on the centerline, the superfiring arrangement took up far more space than they were used to, requiring them to move many traditional locations (the boiler room, for one). Ed[talk][majestic titan] 05:31, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I think you've answered my question - if so, then it should be reworded to something like "As the additional main battery turrets with their associated magazines used a great amount of space within each already-limited ship..." - the point being to make clear that it was the additional number of main battery turrets, not the particular arrangement, that was responsible for the space problem. What you have now won't be an issue for most readers, but to those of us "in the know", it would suggest that the superfiring arrangement was particularly wasteful of space as compared to other arrangements. Parsecboy (talk) 20:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
It seems to me that it would be best to concentrate the discussion of the merits of the superfiring arrangement in one place - right now it's spread out a bit in the design section and then a bit more in the characteristics section.
Did experience with the Kearsarge or Rhode Island classes play any role in the adoption of superfiring turrets? These ships didn't have superfiring guns per se, but from what I understand they were rather unsuccessful and might have caused some opposition to a superfiring arrangement.
That's actually something I looked for while writing up the background. While it would stand to reason that those ships would comw up, Friedman doesn't mention them even once in US Battleships. The main controversy came from C&R's insistence that mixed batteries were fine; or as Friedman puts it, "The bureau also observed sarcastically that quite competent authorities had been happy enough with a mixed battery only a short time before ..." My suspicion is that while they seem similar, the reality was different enough to lead detractors to focus on different topics. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 05:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
And range and performance data for the main battery guns? Elevation/depression?
Where were the casemate guns located? Any idea if they had the same problem with being worked in heavy seas as many contemporary ships did?
Re last two questions, I don't have that information in my sources, and Navweaps is still not reliable (afaik). I have, however, ordered Friedman's US Naval Weapons, which should correct that. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 05:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I have Friedman's Naval Weapons of World War I, which should have the same information, if you need it. Parsecboy (talk) 15:24, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
@Parsecboy: Yes, that would be great. There's no tracking information yet, leading me to think that they've just marked it as 'shipped' so I can't cancel, and Amazon tells me that it could be at my house as late as July 10th. Thank you very much! Ed[talk][majestic titan] 19:59, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
@Parsecboy: I've forwarded you an email. In short, DeGiulian thinks that the guns were at least Mark 5, but he can't be sure on the exact mark—and he's working with a picture from 1914, so they may have been upgraded after being commissioned. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 21:14, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
According to Friedman, the Mk III was the version in production when these ships were built. I wonder if any articles in Proceedings would mention the specific type? Parsecboy (talk) 15:44, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
You have a few dupe links in the article - do you have the script to detect them?
Just installed it. I've removed most of them, though I've left the additional links in the specifications section with the idea that the technical terms should be linked. Please let me know if you object!
Fair enough - though I'd cut one of the links to Dreadnought in the Design section - the quote box is right next to the paragraph with the link in it, which is a bit much IMO.
"due to their top speeds, which were lower than the later Standard-type battleships" - the Standards only started with the Nevadas (i.e., the second generation of US dreadnoughts) - all of the rest of the first generation (Delaware to New York classes) were 21-knotters (and it was the 1st gen ships that did the bulk of USN service in Europe in WWI).
Good point. I've generalized this to "all subsequent US battleships". Ed[talk][majestic titan] 05:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
"which limited naval construction in the hope of averting a vastly expensive naval arms race" - it wasn't just "in hope" of averting another arms race, it did avert another race (or at least delay it for 15 years). Parsecboy (talk) 15:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
One other thing occurs to me upon re-reading the introduction - it really ought to mention the superfiring arrangement. Dreadnought was the first in service with the all-big-gun arrangement (though her real innovation was the use of turbines in a large warship) but the superfiring, all-centerline arrangement was also a major step forward (and was only employed in the other major navies several years later). Parsecboy (talk) 15:24, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Had I not re-read the lead before this, I would have sworn it was in there. It definitely deserves to be. Will add. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 05:31, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
After a third look at the lead, I think it might be wise to include the fact that the shift to the all-big-gun armament was occurring elsewhere besides the USN - at very least I'd think Dreadnought should be mentioned and maybe Satsuma as well.
Something else just caught my eye - "little-armored destroyers" in the Background section - as far as I'm aware, there weren't any destroyers of the period that carried armor - probably better to just say "unarmored" instead. Parsecboy (talk) 13:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)