Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/HMS Vanguard (1909)/archive1


 * 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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:50, 22 February 2018.

HMS Vanguard (1909)

 * Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

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 was all the combat she experienced. Aside from a few unsuccessful attempts to intercept German ships, her war consisted of monotonous training in the North Sea. The article recently completed a MilHist ACR and I've incorporated the comments from my last few British dreadnought FACs. As usual, I'm looking for infelicitous prose, AmEnglish usage and any jargon that needs linking or explaining, although I believe that it meets the FAC criteria.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Image review
 * File:British_Battleships_of_the_First_World_War_Q40389.jpg: to use the UK-unknown tag, you need to detail on the image description page what steps you've taken to try to ascertain authorship. Same with File:HMS_Vanguard_postcard.jpg. The former also needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The description field seems a strange place to describe the research for authorship, rather than the author field or even a separate notes section.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:57, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Not the field, the page - either of those fields would be fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Was a part of the A-class review, can find no more faults. Please note I modified the copyright license of File:1stGenBritishBBs.tiff by removing the OLD-80 and 1923 license and adding a OLD-80-1923 license. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  23:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, Iazyges.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:17, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Lingzhi

 * Since there are no sfn templates, it took me a while to comb through the refs to discover there's no source for Gardiner & Gray. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Good catch. Fixed. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

 * Ref 6: No source defined
 * In ref 13 there appears to be a stray "p." Also, I think the reference should indicate that the link is to a Dreadnought Project page that includes the Times reference, rather than to The Times itself
 * A general point: in a number of cases, e.g. refs 36, 43, 44, etc, you give the website but no publisher. Websites are not publishers – the name of the publisher should be added as you do in, for example,  35 and  38.

Otherwise, no further issues with the refs. Brianboulton (talk) 16:38, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks for clarifying these.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:32, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Parsecboy

 * Not much to nitpick here, but I wonder why the armament and armour section is divided off from the rest of the description. If you removed it, you'd get rid of the problem with the line drawing pushing that heading over
 * What did the boilers burn?
 * I assume QF 3-inch 20 cwt and QF 4 inch Mk V naval gun would be the links for the AA guns? Parsecboy (talk) 20:28, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Could be, but could also be some older 12-pounders on HA carriages. More probably so for the 4-inch guns, but nobody definitely specifies the model, so I've avoided doing so as well. Thanks for looking this over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:36, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Happy to support now. Parsecboy (talk) 18:12, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

 * Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:08, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Support from Deckiller
Support&mdash; any remaining concerns are minor and/or stylistic differences only. Weak Oppose&mdash;the article fails 1a and 2a. The lead is too succinct given the article's length; it lacks details from several sections, such as design, and some of the sentences are quite vague (e.g. "generally forbidden"). The sentence about the Protection Act of 1986 isn't elaborated on in subsequent sections, which raises questions about criterion 1b; that sentence also uses vague wording such as "generally avoided". I made some changes to the lead, but the whole text could use some tweaking to eliminate redundancy and imprecise wording. Here are a few examples:
 * It's impossible to summarize the design & description section without repeating information presented in that section, so I've never done it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:43, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The Protection Act is indeed elaborated in the Wreck section, so I'm not sure what the complaint is. "Generally forbidden" is in the lede and "and cannot be dived upon except with permission from the Ministry of Defence" is more explicit.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:43, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * "A total of 843 men were lost..." &mdash; "A total of" is redundant and "were lost" is vague. Try "843 men died", "843 men perished", or the less blunt "843 men were killed".
 * "were lost" is pretty common phrasing in nautical books, but your wording works too.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I just got a request to have another look at this one. I want to avoid doing anything to control the process or tell anyone off ... FAC is a place for collaborative writing, that's the deal here, and Deckiller is entitled to his language preferences. I generally avoid getting into arguments over word usage at FAC. Having said that ... I do feel an obligation to say something if something starts going wrong with prose reviews at FAC, and that might be the case here. I'll reply inline, one point at a time.
 * On this first point: where would "A total of" be a useful phrase, if not here? It seems perfect to me. (And by the way, your recommendation to start the sentence "843 men died" would be a MOS violation.) In British naval contexts, "men" by itself can be ambiguous, meaning everyone, or just non-officers. Then there are a couple of Australians, and one guy who died of wounds ... this is exactly the kind of sentence where "A total of" works well. (OTOH, it seems to me that "22 total men" in the same paragraph could safely lose the "total", but I'm not positive about that.) - Dank (push to talk)
 * I agree that the second "total" is rather pointless.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:35, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The MOS discourages starting a sentence with a number, correct? In that case I understand why the redundancy was included. My bad. There's no need to restructure that sentence just to avoid a small redundancy.
 * With that said, I do not really see how something is "going wrong" here, Dan; I'm not going to stubbornly maintain an oppose if there's good reason to ignore my suggestions. Most of my points are either valid opportunities for improvement or good-natured recommendations, though some are subjective as you mentioned. I'm no expert on nautical topics, and I am quite rusty when it comes to Wikipedia and copy-editing in general, but my instincts told me that the prose could be tweaked. My intent is to help improve these articles, not disrespect people or trash their work. I believe that silence is worse than nitpicks, even if some of those nitpicks can be retracted after discussion. At least someone is reading the article and trying to be constructive. &mdash;Deckiller (t-c-l) 06:20, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * "The design of the St Vincent class was derived from that of the previous Bellerophon class, with a slight increase in size, armour and more powerful guns, among other minor changes." &mdash; vague sentence. Was the armor "increased"? An "increase of more powerful guns". Try reworking it a bit.
 * I have no trouble understanding "a slight increase in ... armour", but I'm not sure what "a slight increase in more powerful guns" means ... more guns? Bigger guns? - Dank (push to talk)
 * The size of the guns remained the same over the previous class, but the barrels were lengthened which increased their power somewhat. I couldn't think of a good way to word a subordinate clause covering the guns and just lumped them in with the rest.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:16, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * How about "size, armour and the length of the guns"? - Dank (push to talk) 03:34, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That wording works for me. My suggestion was not intended to be used&mdash;I was simply pointing out a sentence that could be improved. &mdash;Deckiller (t-c-l) 06:20, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd though of that, but the problem is that I'm not sure that a general reader would understand the consequences of lengthening the barrels, which does make the guns more powerful.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:16, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * "her service during the war generally consisted of routine patrols and training in the North Sea." &mdash; please clarify that this was World War I.
 * Good idea.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * "During the first year of the war"&mdash; same as above. It's the first mention outside the lead, so please mention WW1 by name.
 * Agreed. - Dank (push to talk)
 * Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:35, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * "By April 1917, Vanguard mounted thirteen 4-inch anti-torpedo boat guns as well as one 4-inch and one 3-inch AA gun."&mdash; vague; the ship itself managed to mount new weaponry? I understand use of the passive voice throughout this tech-heavy section, but here the active voice is deceptive.
 * It's not a voice problem here, Deckiller, he's using "mounted" as an ergative verb. Sturm, I'm not finding sufficient support in the dictionaries here to back you up on this word usage (and there's also the problem that "mount" means so many things that it breeds ambiguity). I don't think you made a mistake here Sturm, I've seen this usage, but it's not in most dictionaries. - Dank (push to talk)
 * It's fairly common in nautical books, particularly if there had been a change in equipment, as a change of pace from more common words like equipped, etc. I'm not totally wedded to the term, but I don't think that it's confusing to an average reader.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:16, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You're right, Dan; it's a stylistic difference and not a fault with the prose itself. This was a complete nitpick. Regarding "mounted", if there is no better verb, then there's no sense in changing it. &mdash;Deckiller (t-c-l) 06:20, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * "Vanguard was refitted in December, with new bilge keels being installed." &mdash; a little redundant and vague. If bilge keels was the only thing installed, then the entire sentence should be restructured a bit.
 * Details on the refit are unknown, other than bilge keels were fitted.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see a good alternative to the way you put it, Sturm. - Dank (push to talk)
 * Why not "In December, Vanguard was refitted with new bilge keels" or something along those lines? I think it's a little more clear and lean. I understand that flow must be taken into account; that para is full of fairly short sentences, and it's clear that the writer wanted to switch it up a bit. I would change it, but if people disagree then I'm not going to be a stubborn prick. &mdash;Deckiller (t-c-l) 06:20, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * A refit generally involved lots of small to medium repairs, replacement of equipment, etc., so I'm reluctant to adopt your wording. I'll try to address each of your comments later today.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:14, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * "Arriving in Portland on 27 July, she was ordered to proceed with the rest of the Home Fleet to Scapa Flow—which would become the fleet's main wartime base—two days later[12] to forestall a possible surprise attack by the Imperial German Navy." this sentence is a snake and should be restructured a bit; you may want to split it in half as well.
 * Agreed that there's a little bit too much in this sentence. I wouldn't split off, say, "which would become the fleet's main wartime base" into a sentence of its own; that would feel ad-hoc. Personally, I'd probably just lose a little bit of the information here to make it easier to digest. - Dank (push to talk)
 * Yeah, that's somebody's addition that clogs the sentence.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:35, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * "In August 1914, following the outbreak of World War I," &mdash; ironically, this sentence is right under a section clearly titled "World War I". Here's an example where you can simplify to "the war".
 * Meh. I'd go with "war" myself, but it's a choice, not a failing. Information in headings is often repeated in the text. - Dank (push to talk)
 * It's a suggested change based on my opinion that the article fails 1a. On its own it is a minor suggestion for improvement, but my goal is to be as constructive as humanly possible. I've been out of the writing scene for many years, so initially I'm going to be overly subjective in some cases (especially WRT differences in writing style). &mdash;Deckiller (t-c-l) 06:20, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * "when the light cruiser Falmouth spotted a suspected German submarine and provoked a panic across the fleet." &mdash; this wording makes it seem that the light cruiser provoked the panic, not the German presence.
 * Who exactly is this reader who will think that the Home Fleet was spooked by the presence of a British light cruiser? I personally would go with "submarine, provoking" rather than "submarine and provoked", but I disagree that the current version is ambiguous or is bad grammar. There's nothing wrong with saying "this doesn't sound right to me" or "I prefer X", but you're going too far. - Dank (push to talk)
 * The point is to be as precise as possible without inflating the prose. That's what was drilled into me for years on Wikipedia. I think your suggestion fixes the issue. &mdash;Deckiller (t-c-l) 06:20, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:35, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * "During the Battle of Jutland on 31 May, Beatty's battlecruisers managed to bait Scheer and Hipper into a pursuit as they fell back upon on the main body of the Grand Fleet."&mdash; "managed to" is redundant; you can eliminate it and rewrite "bait" to past tense.
 * Wrong; "they baited" usually (not always) means they acted to try to induce a result; "they managed to bait" means that they succeeded. Not the same thing. - Dank (push to talk)
 * I disagree; the context makes it very clear that they succeeded here, making the term redundant. The reader won't assume the opposite (e.g. "they failed to bait"). It's a minor point, and I won't have much of an issue if Sturm doesn't want to change it. However, "fell back upon on the main body" seems a little odd; is the "on" superfluous or am I just reading it incorrectly? &mdash;Deckiller (t-c-l) 06:28, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You're right about the redundant "on"--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:35, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * "Although the explosion was obviously an explosion of the cordite charges in a main magazine, the reason for it was much less obvious." &mdash; "explosion" appears twice in 5 words.
 * I remember looking at this one and scratching my head ... I didn't like it either, but I couldn't think of a way to fix it (without asking questions, anyway). Sturm, thoughts? - Dank (push to talk)
 * Almost missed this one. Substituted "detonation" for the second "explosion"--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:30, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Looking forward to seeing the changes! Please remember that these are just examples; the entire text should be scrutinized in this manner. &mdash;Deckiller (t-c-l) 02:43, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Howzabout: "Although the loss of Vanguard was obviously..."--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:35, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Welcome back to FAC, Deckiller. - Dank (push to talk) 03:02, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll try to make a pass this weekend, at which time you guys are more than free to make reversions. I read between the lines with your posts, Dan; you (understandably) do not want to see reviewers force-feed their own writing styles down an candidate's throat, or disrupt a writer's intent by going overboard with eliminating redundancy in the article. My goal is simply to improve content and learn about interesting topics, not to push across my own personal writing style. Perhaps I'm too out of practice to fully differentiate between subjective and objective fixes at this time, especially when it comes to certain topics. &mdash;Deckiller (t-c-l) 06:20, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The bottom line for me is that it's too early for me to know what to say. I look forward to working with you. - Dank (push to talk) 13:27, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I was initially concerned about your comment about looking through the whole text as I really couldn't figure out a pattern of things to fix based on your comments. So it would be great if you could go through the article and point out issues to be addressed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:14, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Looks like life has taken a sharp turn and I don't have as much free time as I hoped, so I'm going to strike out my oppose and Support. &mdash;Deckiller (t-c-l) 14:29, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Closing comment: One image has alt text, the others don't. For consistency, I think we need one or the other. But that isn't worth holding up promotion over. Sarastro (talk) 21:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Sarastro (talk) 21:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.