Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/HMS Vanguard (1909)/Archive1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No consensus to promote at this time - Anotherclown (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 03:06, 23 June 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

HMS Vanguard (1909)

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

Featured article candidates/HMS Vanguard (1909)/archive1

Other than becoming the only British dreadnought lost during World War I to non-combat causes (her magazines exploded in 1917), Vanguard had a typical career for a WWI-era British dreadnought. A few shells fired at the Battle of Jutland mid-way through the war and that was all the combat she experienced. Aside from a few other unsuccessful attempts to intercept German ships, her war consisted of monotonous training in the North Sea. I've significantly expanded the article over the last few months and believe that it meets the A-class criteria. As usual, I'm looking for infelicitous prose, AmEnglish usage and any jargon that needs linking or explaining before I send this to FAC.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:HMS Vanguard (1909).png - same issue as on the class article with regards to the source
- Replaced
File:1stGenBritishBBs.tiff - same issue as on the Neptune ACR - this is probably a S. W. Barnaby illustration (the same illustration appears in the 1913 edition, where he's credited as the illustrator), to the UK template should be updated accordingly.
- - Fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Will review the article itself later. Parsecboy (talk) 17:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lingzhi

Brooks, John (2005) in bibliography, not cited. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 09:15, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- G'day, I think this has been dealt with. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:50, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Hawkeye7

"war-time" should be "wartime"
"relaid" should be "re-laid"
"As might be expected the wreck" insert comma after "expected"
Link Paul G. Halpern and Antony Preston

Looks pretty good. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:38, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Think I got these. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:50, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by PM

in the lead sentence, battleships
in the lead "in May 1916 several months later" - what was several months later?
suggest stating in the lead that she was salvaged before she was designated as a war grave and when that occurred
suggest linking St Vincent class in the Design and description section
suggest "ranged in thicknesses"
link Battle of Jutland at first mention
the eighth ship
suggest "such as ~~that one~~this"
do we know when Dick took command? Would be good to insert it in the appropriate spot in the narrative.
- I think it was 22 January 1916, but haven't yet found a reliable source for this. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:04, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
the casualties don't match the lead, 843 in the lead, 840+2 Aussies in the body. Unless the Japanese officer is also counted, which should be made explicit.
I think Lieutenant-Commander should be Lieutenant Commander
thrown out by the explosions
I think war-time should be wartime
suggest "As might be expected, the wreck,"
sources all appear to be reliable.

That's me done. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:14, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Did what I could with these. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:50, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.