Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/HMS St Vincent (1908)/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) 17:17, 9 April 2017 [1].

HMS St Vincent (1908)

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

St Vincent had a typical career for a WWI-era British dreadnought. A few shells fired during 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 trimmed some of the extraneous details since the MilHist A-class review (which included an image review) last month and I believe that it meets the FA-class criteria. As usual, I'm looking for infelicitous prose, AmEnglish usage and any jargon that needs linking or explaining.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. A solid entry in the series. Lots of attention to detail. - Dank (push to talk) 13:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I reviewed the article at A-class and my concerns were addressed there. Great work as usual. Parsecboy (talk) 13:50, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support- All images are correctly licensed.

"She was unable to comply with the order before the Germans turned back after Moltke suffered engine damage" This bit seems a little oddly phrased. Perhaps "Although she moved to comply with the order, the Germans turned back, after Moltke suffered engine damage, before she could arrive." Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:56, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Rephrased, thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:19, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very nicely done. Just a handful:

"with a slight increase in size, armour and more powerful guns, " I'm not sure this works. "Increase" is plainly meant to apply to size and to armour, and grammatically it should apply to "guns", but obviously it isn't meant to.

See how it reads now.

"The first armour-piercing, capped..." somewhere in these sentences I'd make it clearer you are talking about damage to Moltke.

I dunno. I'd think that the close succession between "hitting her twice" and "The first hit" would make it pretty clear that the damage was inflicted on Möltke.

While you say she was deemed obsolete after the war in the lede, this isn't backed up directly in the body.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:11, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:19, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Check alphabetization of Bibliography
Missing bibliographic details for Massie
Most of the Naval Institute books say Annapolis Maryland, one says only Annapolis. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:44, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Good catches, all. Thanks Nikki.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:12, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Well done, nomination has my support --TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support—looks good to me. Tony (talk) 09:09, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

All images comply with our guidelines except as follows:

File:1stGenBritishBBs.tiff: The second license being used says not to use for a UK work, with Template:PD-UK-unknown being recommended.
- Good catch.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:19, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
File:St Vincent - NH 54835.jpg the item description says it was taken by a US sailor or a commercial photographer, but the tag used says that it was taken by a sailor or employee of the US Navy.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:25, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no specific tag for NHHC images; this is as close as we can get. Key point is that the NHHC states that the image has no known restrictions.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:19, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: I think between here and A-Class, this has had a solid review and there is a clear consensus to promote. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.