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

TFA blurb review
Sturmvogel 66: last one for 2018, if you want to do it. (But we're already getting started on the second half of 2017!) - Dank (push to talk) 22:41, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

HMS Vanguard was one of three St Vincent-class battleship dreadnought battleships built for the Royal Navy in the first decade of the 20th century. Completed in 1910, she spent her career assigned to the Home and Grand Fleets. Aside from participating in the Battle of Jutland in May 1916, where she claimed a few hits on the crippled Imperial German light cruiser SMS Wiesbaden, and the inconclusive Action of 19 August several months later, her service during World War I mostly consisted of routine patrols and training in the North Sea. On the evening of 9 July 1917 at the Grand Fleet's naval base at Scapa Flow, the ship suffered a series of magazine explosions. Vanguard sank almost instantly, killing 843 of the 845 men aboard. Her wreck was heavily salvaged after the war, but it was eventually protected as a war grave in 1984, and was designated as a controlled site under the Protection of Military Remains Act 1986.
 * This is at 845, but there's not much more that I can add to it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:06, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Long story short: we haven't had to go below 925 yet. A few times when the blurbs have been short (because they didn't have an image and I hadn't compensated by making the text longer), we got an earful from the ERRORS people. I'd prefer not to get an earful again. When blurbs are running a little short, it's fine to mention things that aren't "meaty" but do a good job of drawing the reader in. Thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 02:48, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm dubious since her career was so short, but lemme see what might be of use.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:11, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Swapped out images as I expect color ones are generally more appreciated.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:14, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * 983, but this might be a bit too much in the weeds.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:19, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Just a suggestion ... if you're concerned that's too much, maybe we could keep half of what you just added? 935 now. - Dank (push to talk) 04:14, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Always hard for me to judge, since I like technical stuff, but I think that this works.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:17, 16 December 2019 (UTC)