Talk:HMS Vanguard (23)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Jc3s5h (talk) 18:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Overall, I am satisfied with the technical portion of the article, but feel the extensive details about the royal family are off-topic, at least when presented in such detail.

One passage in the lead struck me as confusing and illogical:

Her design was begun before the war began because the British heavy gun industry had declined so much after World War I that it could not built enough guns for more than two battleships per year, although there was no real limit on how many hulls could be built. However, enough old guns and gun turrets were in storage to equip one battleship that could be built relatively quickly.

The confusion was removed when I read the rest of the article, but I think a shorter and more direct statement should be provided in the lead. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I've trimmed the info on the royal family in the main body and reworded the lede. See how it works for you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

One passage still seems to be more about the royals than the Vanguard:

Buckingham Palace announced in November that King George VI was planning to take a short cruise for his health aboard Vanguard. Captain John Litchfield assumed command on 21 December while the ship was still refitting, but the King died on 6 February 1952 before he could make his cruise. A detachment from the ship participated in his funeral procession before she departed for her post-refit shakedown cruise on 22 February.

Another item I meant to mention is there should be an explanation about why she was scrapped. This could be short, with a link to an article that discusses why the usefulness of all battleships became doubtful around this time. Also, you might compare the scrapping date of the Vanguard to that of other British battleships to see if she was disposed of later than the rest, or about the same time. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I've added that the ship would have to be modified, again, to accommodate the King. The crew's participation in his funeral procession is one reason that her shakedown cruise happened when it did. Explanation about scrapping added.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I wonder how extensive an explanation of the factors influencing the date of a shakedown cruise is justified, considering that the cruise occurred 60 years ago?

More importantly, I don't think it suffices to say the Vanguard was scrapped because she was obsolete, or to say than she was the last British battleship without saying how much time passed between the scrapping of the penultimate battleship and Vanguard.

I don't have access to the references in the article, but the external link "HMS Vanguard: A short history of Britain’s last battleship" seems to indicate she survived her sisters by about 10 years. Also, that source indicates the main factor in keeping her so much longer was the prestige factor.

Personally, I'm inclined to think that even into the early 1960s, aircraft were considerably less effective at night and in poor weather, compared to today. Diesel subs couldn't keep up with capital ships. So battleships still had a role in surface naval warfare in poor weather or at night. But with the rapid improvement in aircraft sensors and fast nuclear subs, by 1960, it must have seemed that battleships would soon be relegated to shore bombardment. Of course, I can't go around sticking personal opinion into articles, so a reliable source would be needed to find why the Royal Navy considered Vanguard obsolete.

Obsolete could have an entirely different meaning; it could be that the various systems on Vanguard were incompatible with the rest of the Royal Navy and it would cost too much to upgrade them. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

How about obsolete and too expensive to maintain? The prestige thing only applies until she was placed in reserve. She survived the King George V class ships by only 2-3 years as they were scrapped in '57-'58.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

First off, the citation for this paragraph is McCart; I do hope you checked that source to make sure it says she was too expensive to maintain. Keep in mind that the reader of this article may not have read about battleships in general, and may have no idea why battleships fell out of favor in the 2nd half of the 20th century. Saying she was too expensive to maintain implies that she wasn't worth the expense, considering the military service she could render. So without understanding what military service she was still able to render and the cost of providing that service with other ship types, the reader still does not really understand why she was scrapped. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

McCart mentions Parliamentary whining about her maintenance cost, so that's OK. But the rest of what you're asking for is OR without a clear statement from my sources, which they don't have. Is it a coincidence that both the US and UK began mass scrappings of their battleships in the late 1950s? Probably not, but I'm not going to speculate as to why they chose then instead of any other time. What you're asking for belongs in the general battleship article, not here, IMO, because gov'ts rarely say specifically why a ship was scrapped/sold, etc.; they prefer to leave the reasons unstated.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the Battleship article draws on many sources to try to describe why most battleships were scrapped in the two decades after WWII. I suppose you could just put a sentence like "For a discussion about the decline in the number of battleships after World War II, see Battleship.

I'm sure there must be a good source that sums up the situation, but I have not found it. I would point out that the good article process is about how all the editors have used the resources online and in decent libraries to write a good article. It is irrelevant that a particular author has done the best he/she can with the sources available to him/her, if significant points are missing from the article. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Look at my userpage; I've written hundreds of GAs, plus dozens of A-class and FA-class articles, mostly on ships, so don't patronize me about the GA process. I've likely written more GAs by half an order of magnitude than you've even reviewed. So I don't think that your suggested note is either necessary or desireable as a simple statement of obsolescence has sufficed where it's even been an issue. A detailed statement or explanation as to why it was obsolete would violate WP:Synthesis as none of my sources, which are far more than the few books listed in this article's bibliography (See User:Sturmvogel 66/Library for a full listing) state specifically why she, in particular, was scrapped.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Fine, get one of those other editors who like the other article to override my review. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I sense a bit of Wikistress.... calm please....... ;-)

- I don't think Jc3s5h is wrong to say it would be helpful to have a bit more information about the decision to scrap her, though equally I'm not sure it's something I would make too much of an issue over in a GA review.

I'll see if I can dig something useful out of my sources later this evening (though don't hold me too much to this, I don't have a huge amount of time atm) The Land (talk) 16:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, as all battleships became obsolete at the same time, it would be a bit redundant to list this in all articles. A sentence should suffice, along with a link to Battleship#Cold War? (assuming that's the best link target) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

But they didn't, did they? The King George Vs were scrapped in the 40s, Vanguard lasted until 1960, the Iowas lasted into the 21st Century. Us battleship fans may be so familiar with all of this it needs no explanation but most people won't be. The Land (talk) 22:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Small correction, the King George Vs were scrapped 57-58, the American South Dakotas around '62.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Had a look on my bookshelves, couldn't find anything specific about the end of the Vanguard. The Land (talk) 23:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I visited my local college library. As I expected, they had only one book on battleships, a rather superficial one at that. Unfortunately, the online copies of The Times of London only went back to about 2000. If someone has access to the 1960 issues, there might be a useful writeup around the time of the scrapping. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Its possible she was scrapped for other reasons. For example, with the rise of the United States as an international superpower its possible that the Royal Navy reorient to something more akin to littoral defense. Its also possible that the scrapping of the battleship was done to better bring the UK into a position to aid NATO. Other possibilities to the scrapping include an inability to upgrade the ship in any capacity (IE: not able to add to add missiles, not capable of ASW ops, etc), or perhaps because of a need the ship's materials. At the onset of World War II the US scrapped Oregon (BB-3) because of the need for the steel used in the battleship for the war effort. Lastly, its possible that the ship really was simply obsolete and unneeded, in which case the section could be somewhat expanded on by noting which ships in the Royal Navy were used to replace the gunnery role and the flagship role at the time, which would paint of clearer picture of why the battleship but the dust. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

AFAIK, the Brits never even contemplated converting any of their surviving BBs into missile ships or anything else during the 1950s and they still maintained a large carrier force for another half-decade or so, which argues against assuming a littoral defence role for the RN. I believe, but this is just my opinion, that the RN saw no role for the BB in an era of nuclear-tipped SSMs and that they could use Vanguard's maintenance costs more productively elsewhere. I've summed up both in the existing text as too expensive and obsolete with a cite and that's about the best that can be done without digging into archival material, although Jc3s5H has a good suggestion that the Times might have more info in its back issues, if anyone has access. I will remind him that the Wikipedia:Good article criteria says the article must address every main point, and note 4 says that this is a lesser standard that the comprehensiveness required for FA-class articles. I submit that the article as currently written meets this standard, even if less thorough than Jc3s5H might wish.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Is a second opinion still required or is the reviewer happy with the responses? Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

After reviewing the good article criteria, I have decided that a less-than-complete context is allowable for good articles. If the article were to be nominated as a Featured Article, I would think either more context should be provided, or the talk page should explain why no reliable sources could be found for such context after a reasonably extensive search. Of course, any such context should be contained directly in the reliable sources, and not synthesized by a Wikipedia editor. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)