Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/HMS Warrior (1860)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Ian Rose 10:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

HMS Warrior (1860)

[edit]

HMS Warrior (1860) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The world's first iron-hulled, armoured warship, HMS Warrior had an uneventful career before becoming a floating refuelling jetty in 1929. She was saved from an ignominious end 50 years later when she was turned over to a charitable organization dedicated to restoring her to her 1861 condition. She is now a museum ship in Portsmouth, berthed not far from the sole-surviving 1st rate ship of the line, HMS Victory and the remnants of the Tudor warship Mary Rose.

The article just had a lengthy and contentious MilHist A-class review over the issue of how important the ship's growing obsolescence over her career was to the history of the ship in the article. I think it only deserves a passing mention as every warship becomes obsolete as technology advances, but one reviewer strenuously disagreed and wanted more detail. He made the necessary change to the article, without changing his oppose, and it was promoted before we could discuss the issue further. I've tweaked the article a bit since then, but I've left his edit alone and I'll notify him of this nom once I start it in case he wants to discuss it further here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's only fair that I get to give my own view on the ACR, as Sturm has given his. Prior to the ACR, there was no mention at all of the ship's obsolescence a decade after it was launched, despite it being a notable element of every source I've seen on the ship (it gets its own chapter in two books and its own page on the official website). I didn't feel that the article was properly reflecting sources, so I eventually added two sentences on the subject, which I feel is little more than a passing mention (but the minimum of what the article should contain). As Sturm seems to be okay with the addition, I'd have switched to support in the ACR, but have been quite busy offline of late and haven't had time. However, I'm not sure that its sufficient for FAC. I'll post a review soon. Ranger Steve Talk 15:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Source review - spotchecks not done


Comments

I’ve reviewed the article against the FAC criteria, and I think it’s lacking in a few crucial areas, namely 1a and 1b.

1a. Prose.

I don’t mean to criticise the work of the editors who have copyedited this article, but I don’t feel it meets the requirements of FA. I raised this concern at A-Class and although the example I gave was corrected, not much else was. I’ll list some more examples here, but they are just examples. Although not everything is bad, there are many more cases of less than satisfactory prose and grammar. I feel that the article needs a thorough copy edit (perhaps from the guild) to meet FA requirements.

  • “The destruction of Russian coastal fortifications during the Battle of Kinburn during the Crimean War by French armored floating batteries and multiple tests of armour plates in the late 1850s showed that unarmored ships could easily be destroyed by ironclads that could not be damaged by their guns.” … and breathe.
    • Agreed. To be fair to my copyeditors, I wrote that after they went through the article. I'll have to think about a good way to rephrase that because nothing's coming to me right now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • “The ends of the hull were subdivided by watertight transverse bulkheads into 92 compartments and had a double bottom underneath the engine and boiler rooms.” A bit confusing. It appears to change subject mid-sentence.
  • “The Warrior-class ships had a single two-cylinder trunk steam engine,” Did they take turns with it?
  • “Warrior's original armament was replaced during her 1867–68 refit with 24 seven-inch and four 8-inch (203 mm) rifled muzzle-loading guns.” Switch from numerals to words isn't consistent, neither is use of metric.
  • “Between March and June 1862, defects exposed during her trials were rectified, and damage received during the trials repaired.” Repetition.
  • “Warrior began a refit in November 1864 during which the defective Armstrong guns were removed and her armament was upgraded to the latest rifled muzzle-loading guns. She was briefly commissioned with the intent of becoming guardship at Queenstown, Ireland, and appeared in the 1867 Fleet Review. This commission was cancelled after 24 days when the Admiralty reconsidered, and on 25 July she was again recommissioned under Captain Henry Boys. After working up at Spithead, she sailed to join the Channel Squadron on 24 September. In 1865 she was deployed to Osborne Bay...” I’m totally lost time wise now.
  • “The hulk was towed to her new home, Pembroke Dock, Wales, in March 1929. Upon arrival, she served as a floating oil jetty known from 1942 as Oil Fuel Hulk C77. For the next fifty years, the ship lay just offshore from an oil depot at Llanion Cove…” Fifty years from 1929 or 1942? I know the answer, but the average reader might then think that she was at Pembroke until 1992.
  • “For the next fifty years, the ship lay just offshore from an oil depot at Llanion Cove, occasionally being towed to a nearby dry dock for maintenance…” Tense. There’s a lot of examples of this.
  • Rephrased. You'll need to point them out then.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • “Restoration of Warrior as a museum ship began in August 1979, when she began her 800-mile (1,300 km) journey to her temporary home in the Coal Dock at Hartlepool, where the £3 million restoration project was carried out, largely funded by the Manifold Trust. The ship arrived in Hartlepool on 2 September 1979.” Restoration began in September then. This is another long sentence as well.
  • Consistency: Both armoured and armored are used. Also Channel Squadron and Channel Fleet.
    • Sorry, only armoured is used. Channel Squadron and Channel Fleet are indeed both used because that's what my sources used. If I knew which one was correct, I'd use that one, but I'm fairly certain that the official term changed at some point over Warrior's active life, so I just can't arbitrarily choose one or the other.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tense: I appreciate the need to use past tense most of the time, but for example, “HMS Warrior was 380 feet 2 inches (115.9 m) long…” Surely she still is. Perhaps corrections along the lines of “When launched, Warrior was 380 feet…”
      • Fixed.
    • Some good points, some not so much. Sturm, if you'll go through and do what makes sense to you, I'll respond on the points where you disagree. - Dank (push to talk) 18:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, but this isn't all there is. FA requires "prose [that] is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard". A thorough copyedit is required, not just the correction of these examples. Ranger Steve Talk 18:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, more information will likely be required to identify issues not noted by other reviewers.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • No dice. My support is reliant on this article getting a thorough copy edit. I have already provided a dozen examples of why this is the case, I'm not going to pick through the entire article identifying every example of poor prose - nor am I required to. Just to show how common the issues are though (and why I therefore think a copyedit is required), here's another: "The coldest winter in 50 years caused problems during her launching on 29 December 1860 as she froze to her slipway and required additional tugs and hydraulic rams before the dockworkers could rock her free by running from side to side." Did she freeze to her slipway that day? What were the dockworkers running side to side for? Does it mean they ran from one side of the deck to another? Why did she require rams and tugs before she was rocked free? Where's the punctuation? Your own corrections to my points above have also introduced errors. We now have 40-pounder guns and seven-inch guns; consistency has not been introduced in naming styles. What about this: "For the next fifty years, the ship, known from 1942 as Oil Fuel Hulk C77, lay just offshore from an oil depot at Llanion Cove, occasionally towed to a nearby dry dock for maintenance work." I'm sorry, I don't wish to seem overly critical, but I think this needs a dedicated copyedit. Ranger Steve Talk 19:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ok, let's break down your examples. While the sentence probably does require reworking, you're questioning stuff that really isn't obscure of confusing at all. Why is the day that she froze important? Do you honestly think that the fact that the dockyard workers lit braziers under the grease the night before the launch in a failed attempt to ease Warrior's launching is important and worth adding to the article? And the other questions that you pose are answered quite clearly in the sentence. Nonetheless, I will ask for copyediting assistance as I have a hard time editing my own writing.
            • The names of the guns are correct as given. Yes, there are seven-inch guns and 40-pdr guns. Given that the seven-inch, 110-pounder Armstrong gun had at least three designations during Warrior's lifetime, I combined the two primary styles used. And the guns used after Warrior was rearmed were both measured in inches (7 and 8-inch RML) and pounds (20-pounder Armstrong), so the consistency you seek is historically inaccurate.
              • My point regarding the launching is that the sentence structure at present implies that Warrior might have frozen to the slipway on the day of launching, which is obviously unlikely. The exact day it froze is unimportant, but to say she froze to the slipway during her launching is wrong. I'm sorry, but the poor sentence structure makes the meaning of the content unclear.
              • My point isn't about the gun designations, but the manner in which they're presented. Why do you use numerals for the pounder guns and written words for the inch guns? For consistency's sake you should chose numerals or words to title all the guns, both pounder and inch. I'd suggest numerals - you've even used numerals immediately above for an inch gun (7 and 8-inch RML).
              • "lay just offshore from an oil depot at Llanion Cove, occasionally towed to a nearby dry dock for maintenance work." Ranger Steve Talk 06:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • The expansion of that paragraph has caused that particular sentence to be rewritten.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                  • The fact you can't see these issues (that I find quite obvious) without them being explained in absolute detail, only strengthens the need for a copyedit in my opinion. Ranger Steve Talk 16:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                    • The fact that you felt it necessary to comment on my acknowledgement that I have a hard time editing myself is not at all helpful. Most people do, it's a simple fact of life that you would do well to learn. Perhaps you are one of those lucky few who can edit your own prose, but you've created far too little content here for anyone to judge. Do I really need to quote Teddy Roosevelt at you?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Please quit the low jibes right now. My point above is simple - you cannot see the various issues in this article (you've just admitted it as well). Therefore my request for a thorough copyedit is totally valid. This is not a criticism of your work, but it if you can't see that and would rather pursue a line of condescension of other editors then I can save us all tie by switching to oppose and leaving it there. You comment above shows that you recognise there is an issue, the issue will remain unresolved and this FAC will fail. Ranger Steve Talk 05:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                        • I have never denied that it could use a copyedit and I've said that I will ask for one. Your continued harping on the fact is not helpful.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:00, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                          • My apologies. I realise from re-reading the exchange above that you probably read my comment about "issues.. without them being explained in absolute detail..." as a response to your comment about having a hard time editing your own writing. It was meant as a response to your comment that you find the detailed comments more useful in identifying issues (my point there being that a thorough copyedit by a practised copyedited should hopefully avoid the need for explaining exact issues in too much detail). I was not trying to disparage your own abilities. Ranger Steve Talk 20:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let's move on then. But be advised that I'll finish adding the info that you've requested before I ask for a copyedit, so as to avoid duplication of effort.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1b. Content and context

  • I think a lot of the sections could use expansion; for instance, the restoration. Lambert’s book is practically a book about the restoration, so I think some more should be included per weight. For instance, there needs to be clearer distinction between restoration and replication; the guns and engine aren’t real (and why is it 'engines' if there's only one?). The background to how the guns were found should be included. Likewise, the publicity brought to the project by the figurehead and Prince Philip, the importance of Midshipman Murray’s plans and the removal of 250 tons of concrete from the main deck are all the sort of facts I would expect to see in this section. Warrior was also dry docked in 2004 for maintenance, which could go in the following section. A word or two on her significance as a preserved ship wouldn't go amiss either.
  • I would similarly like to see the service section expanded. It presently reads rather like a list of facts, with no context or explanation. For instance “In 1878 she was mobilised in reaction to concerns that Russia might be about to attack Constantinople, but this did not happen”. Why was Russia about to attack Constantinople? We have a whole article on this war that should be linked to. Similarly Warrior’s various appointments are unexplained. What did the Channel Squadron do? What was special about the floating drydock? One bit that definitely needs expansion is this: “Warrior was then used as a storage hulk and, from 1902 to 1904, as a depot ship for a flotilla of destroyers.” This is a major change in the ship’s service. She was demasted, stripped of her engine and had buildings constructed on her main deck, effectively ending her career as a sailing ship. I appreciate that hulk article is linked to, but a little more explanation is needed to fully appreciate the change that occurred. Similarly how was she adapted for her role as a floating oil platform?

Some other points:

  • “Warrior began a refit that lasted until 1875, that added a new poop deck”. Was there an old poop deck? As there is no description of the ship’s open deck design and double bridge, this amount of information lacks background. I’d suggest expanding the description when built.
    • That sort of info goes into the class article, which focuses on technical detail. The individual ship article focuses on the ship's history.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, but I disagree. The article currently has 12 whole paragraphs of technical detail, with no less than four on the armament alone! I think a simple description of basic design is not out of place, and as has been pointed out in the ACR, this page gets far more views than the class article. The 'new poop deck' still lacks clarification if you don't put anything else in, whether you agree with my point above or not. Ranger Steve Talk 19:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is ironic as all get out as you're the primary person responsible for the addition of much of the technical detail. You even added a whole paragraph yourself on the ship's boat and training guns that I'd thought not worth mentioning. I've removed the word "new" regarding the poop deck that was added during the refit which will clarify that it replaced nothing. The conning tower and navigating bridge get two paragraphs in Lambert amongst the miscellanea like boat complement, anchors and pumps, while the guns get a lengthy chapter. I think that they're best left to the class article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have no idea what you're talking about. Although I have strongly recommended that a basic description of the ship be included during the ACR, I have made no additions to the technical detail, least of all a whole paragraph or any detail on the armament or boats. Perhaps you could back up this assertion with a diff? I still don't agree that technical detail should be in a class article while history goes in the ship article. Is there some sort of policy or just your own view? Ranger Steve Talk 16:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • My apologies, I'd thought that you'd added a paragraph of excessive technical detail on the ship's guns, but it was someone else. Common sense tells me that the class article focuses on technical detail with an overview of the ships' careers and the ship article gets the reverse with a detailed account of the career and an overview of the technical side. Otherwise the two would be near mirrors of each other. The level of technical detail that you want strikes me as excessive for the ship article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:00, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • No worries. I agree to a certain extent that a class article should carry more detail, but not at the expense of relevant detail in the ship article. Readers shouldn't need to refer to the class article for basic descriptions; I think the open deck design is relevant. Ranger Steve Talk 20:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • Really? It's not even mentioned in Parkes or Ballard and only tangentially in Lambert or Welles, mostly confined to asides that most all of the ship's crew would be below decks in combat, unlike most wooden ships.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • “Her name was changed to HMS Vernon III in March 1904, a month after she joined Portsmouth-based Vernon, the Royal Navy's torpedo training school.” I understood that Vernon was a HMS, but aren’t the individual elements (Vernon I, II and III) more like buildings of a shore establishment and not individual HMSs on their own? I can’t find any mention of HMS Vernon III in my sources, just Vernon III.
  • “Warrior was saved from being scrapped by the efforts of the Maritime Trust, led by John Smith MP.” Confusing because there is no prior mention that she was at risk of being scrapped at this point in time. In fact it risks breeding confusion with the previous paragraph.
    • That's actually kinda complicated. Since the Trust was actively pursuing the ship, there was a minimal risk that she'd have been scrapped. OTOH, if the Trust hadn't existed she would have undoubtedly been scrapped just like Agincourt was nearly 30 years earlier. But I think that the risk of confusion is minimal given that the previous paragraph only mentions scrapping in the first sentence and more than 50 years earlier.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Even if it's complicated, it's still confusing to say it was saved from being scrapped when there is no previous mention of a risk of scrapping. So the opening sentence of this section doesn't make sense. I'd suggest including the information you've just included (sourced of course) or reworking the sentence. Ranger Steve Talk 19:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Clarified that scrapping was the usual fate of ships sold. That said, I still need to get a good transition between the last sentence of the construction and service section and the first of the restorations section. Nothing comes to mind offhand, any suggestions?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think it needs a bit more detail, as the transfer was a tad more complicated. How about redoing the paragraph thus:
Were it not for the effort of two trusts and a number of individuals who recognised Warrior's historical importance, she would almost certainly have been scrapped when Llanion Cove Oil Depot closed in 1978 (Winton p.46). Consideration had first been given to restoring Warrior in the early 1960s, although none of these ideas developed into a serious project (Winton p.47, Lambert p.45). In 1967, the Greater London Council proposed a scheme to restore the ship and make it an attraction in London, but at this point in time Warrior was still required in Pembroke by the Royal Navy and the scheme went no further (Winton p.47, Lambert p.45). The following year the Duke of Edinburgh chaired a meeting that considered the possibility of rescuing and restoring Warrior and other historic vessels, and a year later the Maritime Trust was established with a view to saving the decrepit ironclad and other historic ships (Lambert p.45). The Maritime Trust and a major supporter, the Manifold Trust led by John Smith MP, maintained an interest in Warrior and when, in 1976, the Royal Navy announced that the Llanion oil depot would close in 1978, the Manifold Trust began to seek funds to restore her. With the promise of financial support for restoration, the Royal Navy donated the ship to the Maritime Trust in 1979 (Winton p.51, Lambert p.45). Ownership was transferred to the Ship's Preservation Trust in 1983, which became the Warrior Preservation Trust in 1985 (Winton p.50). Ranger Steve Talk 21:53, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2a. Lead.

I think it’s a bit too short. A little bit of expansion on her service history and restoration is needed; presently the last 100 years are dealt with in only two sentences. Typo in the fourth sentence as well.
You're probably right about the length of the lede, but she really didn't have an eventful history. Typo? Where? Storeship is OK either with or without a space.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dank seems to have fixed it. Ranger Steve Talk 19:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regards, Ranger Steve Talk 18:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note to say that I'll now be away from the web for a week from Saturday 29th, and can respond to any comments when I get back. Ranger Steve Talk 10:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two more comments on content.

  • Both Lambert and Winton say that Warrior was laid down on the 25th May 1859 (Lambert p.27, Winton p.4), and the Pitkin guide also says May. It's also in the infobox. As you declined to improve the referencing of the article, I can't tell where you have got the June date from, but perhaps you could check if it's correct?
    • Curious how you willfully failed to note the cite only one sentence after the one which interested you. The 2010 edition of Lambert corrected his earlier information. Thanks for catching my failure to update the infobox after changing the main body.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • But don't you see? I'm not wilfully ignoring the cite - I have no idea what the cite refers to. It follows information about the construction firms near insolvency, not the date of the ship's laying down. This is exactly why I pressed for more references. Aside from that, you've updated the infobox to August, not June. Does Lambert specifically correct his earlier work, or just give different information? If he doesn't specifically correct himself, I'd be inclined to put the 25 May date in a footnote, given it's presence in two texts. Ranger Steve Talk 19:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • It seems pretty obvious to me that a cite covers everything up to the previous cite or the beginning of a paragraph. That's the way that it works in academia and your desire to cite every sentence exceeds academic standards by a large margin. Yes, Lambert specifically changes his earlier work for the reasons that I listed. He does not give a date for the keel laying, only mid-August for the start of construction as stated in the article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:21, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't know where you do 'academia', but where I do it, 10 page cites are not sufficient. I have no desire to cite every sentence (that would be absurd), but an ability to identify the source of an individual fact or assertion is what cites are for. It's not enough for me to oppose, but your increasing resistance and attempts to belittle reviewing editors is noted. Ranger Steve Talk 22:39, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Winton states that Warrior cost "about £390,000" and Lambert says £357,291. If there is disagreement amongst the sources, it may be worth including a footnote to give the differing opinions. Ranger Steve Talk 17:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, 1a. The writing is not up to FA standards in some places.
  • "they were built in response to the first ironclad ocean-going warship, the wooden-hulled French ironclad Gloire" The second "ironclad" seems redundant.
  • Why use the term "paid off"? Is that the term used in your source? The link redirects to decommissioning which says the term "paid off" is a more modern one (although that is uncited).
    • Actually I'd say that paid off is the older term as it refers to a ship's enlisted crew being paid their back wages upon the ending of the ship's commission and their release from service. AFAIK that system began around the 1600s and endured until (late 1800s?) sailors enlisted for specific terms of service rather than with a individual ship. And that is the term used in my sources.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Take care to properly re-introduce topics in the body text that your describe in the lead. The lead should summarize body text. For example, you thoroughly introduce the Gloire in lead but mention it in Background without really saying that it's either an ironclad or a French ship.
  • "The situation got so bad" is overly vague and colloquial. "Bad" is a very subjective and not very descriptive adjective.
  • "Indecision by the Admiralty caused many delays and nearly drove her builders bankrupt" Indecision about what?
  • "Warrior began a refit in November 1864 during which the defective Armstrong guns were removed" You haven't said anything about defective guns. Which guns were defective and in what way?
  • Awkward writing and inconsistent tense: "She was briefly commissioned in 1867 with the intent of making her a guardship at Queenstown in Ireland, and appeared in the 1867 Fleet Review."
  • Propensity for using the vague "this" in reference to previous subjects or statements. This what? A couple examples, only one sentence apart from each other:
  • "This was cancelled after 24 days"
  • "This was not merely an honorary guard"
  • "During one of her maintenance dockings before World War II, the ship's upper deck was covered with a thick layer of cement." This is a sentence that definitely suffers from the use of passive voice. Who covered it with cement, and why? Or did a cement just randomly fall on it? Passive voice prevents us from discovering key details.
Not far off, but lots of wrinkles to iron out. --Laser brain (talk) 13:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really appreciate all the perceptive comments. I was asked by the nominator to copyedit and have had a good hack at it under difficult conditions; I've been camping and doing a lot of the work by torchlight on a patchy connection with a laptop. I shall be back home tonight UTC and would like to have one more look. I think I have addressed most of the faults identified with the writing but with one more push I think I can get it looking really good. Thanks for your patience. --John (talk) 09:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update I've used Laser brain's comments and my own sources to rework the article slightly. I think the only specific point I haven't addressed is the one about "Indecision by the Admiralty..." and I've messaged the nominator about this. He's indicated that he will dig out the source and help me clarify this point. Once again, thanks for all the criticisms as it has really helped me. I'm far too close to the article by now to formally support but I think the prose is much closer to standard now. --John (talk) 20:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lambert says: "Frequent design changes during construction and a fair degree of prevarication by the Admiralty ensured Thames Ironworks made a considerable loss on the contract." So I've added frequent design changes to the sentence.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks to Laser brain for reviewing this and to John for helping to resolve most of the issues raised by Laser brain and RangerSteve. I've been moving this last week and hope to be able to expand the restoration section as RangerSteve asked in the next few days.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Was the decking added later made of cement or concrete? --John (talk) 17:31, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. Wells says cement, but later discusses the removal of concrete, while Lambert and the ship's webpage both say concrete.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick fix. --John (talk) 18:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comments -- So where are we at now? I've left this open well beyond the usual (admittedly elastic) time limit because I don't like closing reviews when people are in the middle of extensive copyedits, even though FAC isn't supposed to be the place for that. The copyediting appears complete based on the comments above but I still don't see clear consensus to promote. It'd be a shame to archive as no consensus after so much work has gone into it but without some more declarations one way or the other I won't have much choice. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm concerned, the article is pretty well complete. I pinged Ranger Steve a couple of days ago to see if he has anything else he'd like to see added (some of his comments were pretty cryptic), but no response as of yet, and just pinged a couple of others who've been peripherally involved to see if they're willing to offer formal comments. I'll ping John and Eric to see if they're willing to support on prose issues since they've both copyedited the article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:20, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support on prose and also on completeness; since being asked to "copyedit" I have read several of the sources and extensively reworked the article. In the process I have added new material and new sources, and made over 100 edits to the article. So, with that disclaimer about a possible COI, I think this article is as good as it can be and meets FAC in the areas I have examined. --John (talk) 09:55, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm somewhat dumbfounded that my comments can be described as cryptic given the sheer amount of explanation and justification I've had to make for almost everything I've commented on. Perhaps this is related to the random comment on my talk page asking how I wanted to see the museum ship section expanded. Sturm might do well to remember that I originally wrote the section as there had only previously been a solitary sentence, and have not asked for it to be expanded in this FAC. The rather misleading comments that have been made since the very moment this FAR opened are disappointing and to me smack of an effort to demean content reviews rather than tackle the issues they are raising.
I'd like to raise a concern that this article was never ready for FAC when it started, which is reflected in the length of time its been open for. This isn't just another WP:Ships article that can be pulled together into some set template on design and service; Warrior is a cultural and historical icon and a major tourist attraction in Britain and should be approached differently. On the Warrior Talk page back in 2008, User:The Land makes an interesting statement that I fully agree with: "Preservation doesn't necessarily affect a ship's importance to naval history but it does affect their importance for the purposes of writing an encyclopaedia." The excellent articles on the Mary Rose and USS Constitution serve to show how well it can be done. A peer review might have been a better place to start, rather than opening an FAC the day after the article had just got through a difficult ACR.
I still feel there is room for expansion of this article, which I may tackle if I get more time on Wikipedia. For the time being though, my major concerns listed above have been addressed, so I'll support. Ranger Steve Talk 10:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dr. Blofeld

[edit]
I'll take a look at this tomorrow.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:32, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Just a few things:

Lead
  • "HMS Warrior was the name ship of her class of two armoured frigates" Not sure why you've piped lead ship with name ship?
    • Beats me, fixed.
  • Same with decommissioned piped to paid-off below, is there a reason why decommissioned can't be directly used?
    • Paid off was the RN term, which differed from decommissioning as, forex, the USN did it. If there was an article that explained the differences, I'd use that, but, for now, decommissioning suffices.
Overview
  • "her iron hull" why is hull linked in that instance when it isn't linked above?
    • Fixed.
  • Same with Admiralty, not linked in the first instance but linked below, can you switch the links to both?
    • It's linked on first usage in the Background section.
Armament
  • Delink wrought iron, already linked in preceding section, also there is inconsistency with wrought-iron in the first instance and wrought iron in the second.
    • Done, but it gets a hyphen if the term is used as part of a compound adjective like wrought-iron armour.
Propulsion
  • Boilers is linked but isn't linked in the Armament section, switch the links again.
    • Somebody switched my paragraphs around, but done.
Construction and service
  • Can you use the currency adjusted for inflation templates, I'd be curious to know what £50,000 and £377,292 would be equivalent to today.
    Those inflation templates are unsuitable for capital projects such as building a warship. Eric Corbett 12:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's OK, still curious though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add a proper conversion later. Eric Corbett 13:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Eric's right; the Ships project had a long discussion over how to convert building costs into modern equivalent and basically came to the conclusion that you really can't as they're capital expenditures. All I can do is provide a contemporary value to get a feel for how much it compared to other costs of the time for similar objects.
  • Madeira and Bermuda linked, but Gibraltar isn't? Did Jimbo do that? ;-].
    • You mean it isn't already well-enough known after the whole imbroglio? ;-)
  • "She was modified into a mooring jetty beginning on 22 October 1927. " -any idea where this was done and where exactly it served as a jetty in Portsmouth? I gather it's the harbour but I'd like some reference to a nearby landmark or something to get an indication like "just to the west of St. Finns Church in Queen Street".
    • The conversion was done in Portsmouth, but she never served as a jetty there; only in Llanion Cove.
Restoration
Museum ship
  • Delink jetty, and link in the first instance if it hasn't been already.
  • "She is the world's oldest surviving ironclad warship." Citation needed for a strong claim.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/HMS_Warrior_(1860)/archive1&oldid=1088823484"