Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/St Vincent-class battleship/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12:07, 30 April 2017 [1].

St Vincent-class battleship[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:07, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These three British battleships were ordered at a time when the government in power was interested in cutting 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, only seeing combat during the Battle of Jutland. One of them was destroyed by magazine explosions while at anchor in 1917 and 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. The article passed a MilHist A-class review a few days ago, although I've tweaked it bit since then and I believe that it meets the FAC criteria.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:07, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

  • Compare: "Although Vanguard's wreck in Scapa Flow is a war grave, it was extensively salvaged afterwards." with: "Much of Vanguard's wreck was salvaged before it was declared a war grave in 1984." If it was declared a war grave only in 1984, then readers might take the "afterwards" in the first sentence to mean after 1984.
    • Good catch; see how it reads now. And thanks for the prompt review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:16, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 20:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  • I found one bit of unexplained jargon: 4th BS. I figured BS meant battle squadron?
    • You'll see it defined in the first para of the Careers section.
  • Also, maybe I'm old fashioned, but I always like a comma before "but"....auntieruth (talk) 20:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, me too. Thanks for alerting me to that little issue.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:21, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support I reviewed this article at GAN and Milhist A-Class, and believe it now meets the Featured Article criteria. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

Just a few things

  • "Vanguard's wreck was extensively salvaged before it was declared a war grave. Since 2002, however, it has been designated as a controlled site under the Protection of Military Remains Act 1986 and diving on the wreck is generally forbidden." I might cut the "however", which reads oddly because the last phrase, it being declared a war grave, is consistent with no diving.
  • What is a homogeneous battleship?
  • I might move the first image down a paragraph if possible because it clashes with the infobox in the desktop view I'm using.
  • A link to Asquith might be more useful than the link to Liberal, given where the reader is likely to find discussion of the naval arms race.
  • Ref 16: Is there a dot after "St"? (I'm doing this offline)
  • "Data from a 9-foot (2.7 m) Barr and Stroud coincidence rangefinder located at each control position, together with the target's speed and course information, was input into a Dumaresq mechanical computer " should input be inputted?
  • "As a backup, two turrets in each ship ('A' and 'Y' in St Vincent) could take over if necessary" I might put "fire control" (or whatever the appropriate term is) before "if necessary".
  • "Collingwood served as a boys' training ship on 22 September 1921" I might say "from" rather than "on"
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:34, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

All sources seem of encyclopedic quality and are consistently cited. I note that the ISBNs seem a mix of 10 digit and 13 digit. Suggest going one way or the other.--Wehwalt (talk)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:32, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/St_Vincent-class_battleship/archive1&oldid=778075421"