Talk:San Salvador (Guipúzcoan squadron)

Contradiction
Is it me, or is there an apparent contradiction in this article? The magazine exploded, yet a significant quantity of powder was captured… The explosion was, er, partial, or one of the ship’s magazines exploded? --V. berus 21:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I wrote those sentences. I'll check the references in a couple of hours when I'm back at home. Thanks for pointing it out. Sancho 21:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Robert Milne-Tyte's Armada! says, "an explosion reverberated through the Armada, and when the smoke had cleared it could be seen that the San Salvador, one of the biggest galleons in the Guipuzcoan squadron, was ablaze, with her great sterncastle blown clean away and two of her decks shattered. The San Salvador's powder magazine had gone up, probably owing to some wayward spark..."
 * Colin Martin's The Spanish Armada says, "... without the major haul of powder and shot captured from the Rosario and the San Salvador the situation would have quickly become perilous. Between them the two prizes yielded 229 barrels of powder &mdash; perhaps a quarter of the total stock expended by the English in the course of the campaign."
 * Perhaps a large amount of powder was not in the store that happened to have exploded. That would be the only way that these two references don't contradict each other. Either there were two powder stores, or a large amount of the powder had been dispatched to the guns. Maybe somebody a bit more familiar with 16th century sail warfare could answer the question: would either of these two explanations make sense? Sancho 02:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * .....or there were two ships in the Armada called San Salvador. see here.--Ykraps (talk) 08:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination
Per the quick-fail criteria, any article with cleanup or expansion banners present is to be failed forthwith. The banner is correct in that the needs quite a bit of expansion, which would in my estimation take longer than the maximum hold period of a week. In general, the article suffers from a time bias; that is, it fails to provide proper context. Background and aftermath sections need to be created and/or expanded, and the introduction is not a complete and concise overview of the article. The sourcing looks okay, so nice work there. Remember in your expansion to place a minimum citation at the end of each paragraph and for quotations. Once these issues have been dealt with, feel free to re-nominate it. If you feel this review is in error, you are welcome to request a reassessment. Thank you for your work so far! Van Tucky  Talk 21:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)