This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Dakota, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
U.S. state of South Dakota on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South DakotaWikipedia:WikiProject South DakotaTemplate:WikiProject South DakotaSouth Dakota articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all
Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please
join the project, or contribute to the
project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles
Items for Possible Deletion
I'm always hesitant to remove content that someone else had put in before my edit, but I don't think the paragraph about the Lexingtons is relevant, and the section on reuse of names seems unnecessary. I'd like to delete both of these. Comments?--
Busaccsb (
talk) 04:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)reply
Standard type battleship
I noticed that standard type is not a regular article, but a category page. This seems odd, given that it goes beyond what a category page usually does, and actually offers a good explanation of what the standard type is. I think this should be be an article. Comments?--
Busaccsb (
talk) 04:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)reply
Construction / Shipyard / Progress
Since the individual ships do not have Wikipedia pages, I think an table listed these ships, which shipyard for each ship, and perhaps keel laying, and cancellation date might be helpful.
Wfoj2 (
talk) 22:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)reply
Missing references
A couple of references are cited in the article without being included in the bibliography. These are: Hone 2011 and Anderson and Baker 1977. These really need to be added or the citations removed.
Nigel Ish (
talk) 09:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Yes, I've been trolling the Internet, unsuccessfully, trying to figure out which references these relate to. Since the original editor is no longer active on en.wiki, I've sent them an email asking for clarification. —
Huntster (
t@c) 11:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)reply
As for Anderson and Baker, that ref can be found
here. I've added it to the article.
Parsecboy (
talk) 12:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Definitely not Innovation, as the page number given here matches to a citation list there. Are you sure about "CV-2 Lex and CV-3 Sara"? Seems odd, though I have no access to a copy to verify. —
Huntster (
t@c) 12:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)reply
It's highly plausible that the "Lex and Sara" article would have made reference the South Dakota class, since they were contemporary designs, especially if, for instance, one of the classes borrowed design aspects from the other. I believe @
Sturmvogel 66: has the article - or at he at least had it when he wrote the
Lexington-class aircraft carrier article - so perhaps he can confirm the reference.
Parsecboy (
talk) 17:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Both designs used turbo-electric propulsion and had much in common, so the ref is valid. I expanded the pages numbers in the cite to cover all the info covered.--
Sturmvogel 66 (
talk) 13:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Thanks Sturm. I may have found a nearby library with access to the Battle Line book, and hopefully that will help verify the "Hone 2011" reference. —
Huntster (
t@c) 03:35, 16 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Incorrect Unit Conversions
The unit conversions are incorrect for the ship's armor. 13.5 inches is 343mm not 340, and 5 inches is 127mm not 130. Is there a more accurate conversion system available? I was not able to edit the values manually due to them using a conversion system. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Prince of Darimar (
talk •
contribs) 10:27, 1 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Turbo-electric drive
If she used DC propulsion motors the steam turbines would be coupled to generators (DC) not alternators (AC).
Hugo999 (
talk) 05:31, 6 May 2017 (UTC)reply
All done. Thanks for looking this over.--
Sturmvogel 66 (
talk) 20:45, 18 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Looks good, happy to promote.
Parsecboy (
talk) 23:52, 18 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Cancellation
So, except for the intro, nowhere in the article actually states that the class was cancelled because of the Washington Naval Treaty. It talks about the design process, the specs and then it ends, with just a note about what happened to the guns. It kinda feels unfinished.
Cléééston (
talk) 02:45, 13 July 2022 (UTC)reply