Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/St Vincent-class battleship

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history | Assessment
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.

Article promoted by HJ Mitchell (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 04:06, 3 April 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

St Vincent-class battleship

edit
Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

St Vincent-class battleship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

These three British battleships were ordered at a time when the government in power was interested in reduced expeditures on the Royal Navy and showed only minor improvements over their predecessors. They spent their entire careers based in home waters and did not have eventful careers during World War I. They only saw combat during the Battle of Jutland. One of them was destroyed by magazine explosions while at anchor in 1917. The two remaining ships were effectively obsolete by the end of the war and were sold for scrap in the early 1920s. As always, I'm looking for remnants of AmEng and unexplained jargon. I'm also interested in readers' opinions on the balance in the narrative of the sisters' activities; too much detail, not enough? They literally did very little other than training during the war, so there's not a whole lot of excitement to add, although I can probably expand the training bits more if necessary. As the Grand Fleet generally did things en masse during the war, this will be the model for all the other battleship-class articles, so it needs to be done well. Therefore I'd like reviewers to pay a particular attention to the service section.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:14, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:HMS Vanguard (1909).png - needs a source, and this appears to be where it came from. I'm not entirely sold on the usability of the photo given what little we know about it (Nikki might be able to give us a better answer), but it may be better to just use a different image with clearer status (like this one).
    • Swapped in a better pic.
  • File:HMS Vanguard aft guns USNHC NH 52619.jpg - not necessary, but it looks like the version available on the NHHC's site is higher quality - you might consider uploading it.
    • Good idea, done.

Support Comments

  • I spy a "favor"
  • What were the speeds reached on sea trials?
  • I'd say the level of detail for the service history section is about right.
  • The Subsequent activity header seems to come out of nowhere - subsequent to what? On one hand, excessive subdivision isn't ideal, but there needs to be at least something else there. A "Jutland" section makes the most sense.
  • I wonder if the last section is appropriately titled - only three sentences of the final four paragraphs concern the loss of Vanguard. I might move that paragraph into the Subsequent activity section and retitle the last section as "Postwar" or something. Parsecboy (talk) 21:53, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Parsecboy:

Support Comments

  • You asked for AmEng, so there is a "favor" and "center"
  • "preceeding" should be "preceding"
  • I don't see the benefit of giving pressures in kgf/sqcm; just psi and kPa is enough
    • Actually, I see it more often in books than I do kPa, but I have no idea what's taught nowadays.
  • "back up" should be "backup"
  • "the 4th BS were in the centre" should be was
  • Were only three bodies recovered from Vanguard's explosion, or was it that Collingwood recovered three?
    • I think that there might have been a few more bodies recovered, but those 3 were just by Collingwood.

Pretty good. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7:

Comments

  • " in the first decade of the 20th century" Is their a reason 1910's is not said here?"
    • Yes, because they were built 1907–10, not in the 1910s.
  • "Although Vanguard's wreck in Scapa Flow is a war grave" It should be mentioned if a ships war grave is on par, or close to being on war, with a military cemetery, such as Arlington, it sounds like that is implied, given the way it leads to it being protected.
    • I don't understand what you mean here?
  • "The Admiralty's 1905 draft building plan" isn't draft building sort of redundant ? Unless it has some meaning in british english that i'm unaware of. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:12, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support I reviewed this closely during GAN in February and given the above improvements, I believe it meets the A-Class criteria. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:26, 2 April 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/St_Vincent-class_battleship&oldid=773557525"