Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/HMS Vanguard (1909)/Archive1


 * 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.

No consensus to promote at this time - Anotherclown (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 03:06, 23 June 2017 (UTC) &laquo; Return to A-Class review list

HMS Vanguard (1909)

 * Nominator(s): 

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 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. I've significantly expanded the article over the last few months 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) 17:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Image review Will review the article itself later. Parsecboy (talk) 17:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * File:HMS Vanguard (1909).png - same issue as on the class article with regards to the source
 * Replaced
 * File:1stGenBritishBBs.tiff - same issue as on the Neptune ACR - this is probably a S. W. Barnaby illustration (the same illustration appears in the 1913 edition, where he's credited as the illustrator), to the UK template should be updated accordingly.
 * Fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Lingzhi

 * Brooks, John (2005) in bibliography, not cited. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 09:15, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * G'day, I think this has been dealt with. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:50, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Hawkeye7
Looks pretty good. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:38, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "war-time" should be "wartime"
 * "relaid" should be "re-laid"
 * "As might be expected the wreck" insert comma after "expected"
 * Link Paul G. Halpern and Antony Preston
 * Think I got these. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:50, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments by PM
That's me done. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:14, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * in the lead sentence, battleships
 * in the lead "in May 1916 several months later" - what was several months later?
 * suggest stating in the lead that she was salvaged before she was designated as a war grave and when that occurred
 * suggest linking St Vincent class in the Design and description section
 * suggest "ranged in thickness es "
 * link Battle of Jutland at first mention
 * the eighth ship
 * suggest "such as that one this"
 * do we know when Dick took command? Would be good to insert it in the appropriate spot in the narrative.
 * I think it was 22 January 1916, but haven't yet found a reliable source for this. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:04, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * the casualties don't match the lead, 843 in the lead, 840+2 Aussies in the body. Unless the Japanese officer is also counted, which should be made explicit.
 * I think Lieutenant-Commander should be Lieutenant Commander
 * thrown out by the explosions
 * I think war-time should be wartime
 * suggest "As might be expected, the wreck,"
 * sources all appear to be reliable.
 * Did what I could with these. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:50, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.