Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/HMS St Vincent (1908)

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 AustralianRupert (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 11:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

HMS St Vincent (1908) edit

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

Featured article candidates/HMS St Vincent (1908)/archive1

St. Vincent 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. She was reduced to reserve after the war and was scrapped in the early 1920s. I've significantly expanded the article with more details on that monotonous training since it was promoted to GA two years ago 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) 01:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Images all check out, but can we get a full citation for File:1stGenBritishBBs.tiff? Parsecboy (talk) 01:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean? A full bibliographic citation? Or a link to the book?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, a full citation on the image page. Parsecboy (talk) 00:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's proven surprisingly hard to do as it's an annual with a bunch of different entries in Worldcat. I've corrected the info to Brassey's rather than Jane's and added a link from the Internet Archive. That's generally sufficed in the past, IIRC.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:45, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - That works - there's a pretty nice illustration of HMS Monarch on the frontispiece in that edition that you might be interested in too (I've already snagged the one of Kaiser). Parsecboy (talk) 14:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Comments~~

I might add a note unpacking the "more powerful guns" bit - a casual reader might see that both classes had 12" guns and be confused. Up to you.
- I dunno, to define that, I'd have to start talking about muzzle velocities, etc. Which I've done in the class article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was thinking a fairly basic note along the lines of "The longer gun provided a higher muzzle velocity, which improved the range it could fire shells and the ability of those shells to penetrate steel armour." Not a big deal though.
I might also add a line about the rising tensions in late July 1914 with a link to July Crisis
- Excellent idea!
Link to Action of 19 August 1916. Parsecboy (talk) 01:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for catching these, including the ones that I thought were already in it!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I closely reviewed this article for GAN in December/January and consider that it meets the A-Class criteria. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks good to me. Should Norman Friedman, Andrew Gordon (naval historian), Henry Newbolt and Antony Preston be author-linked in the bibliography? Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Typically, I don't think to link authors, but it's a good idea.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:17, 26 February 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.