Talk:RIMS Warren Hastings

RIMS Warren Hastings has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: January 16, 2015. (Reviewed version).

A fact from RIMS Warren Hastings appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 27 January 2015 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the RIMS Warren Hastings (pictured) was said to be "practically unsinkable" because of its 33 watertight compartments?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2015/January. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/RIMS Warren Hastings.

Wikipedia

Ships

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

British Empire Low‑importance

	British Empire portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Empire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Empire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.British EmpireWikipedia:WikiProject British EmpireTemplate:WikiProject British EmpireBritish Empire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Maritime / Asian / South Asia

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	Asian military history task force
	South Asian military history task force

Shipwrecks Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shipwrecks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of shipwreck-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ShipwrecksWikipedia:WikiProject ShipwrecksTemplate:WikiProject ShipwrecksShipwreck articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Shipwreck-related priority open tasks:

To Do

Lady Elizabeth (1879)
- Clean up typos Currently working on it-----Completed!
- Improve grammar
- Add any additions if needed Still adding more information
- Discuss desired additions -None

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:RIMS Warren Hastings/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: AmaryllisGardener (talk · contribs) 20:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

I didn't find any big problems really, I fixed the only one i found. What's amazing is that you did it all yourself, from creation to GA! Great job! --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 20:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Now, I'm going to see if I can find any interesting facts for DYK... --Biblioworm 20:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

She or it?

User:Biblioworm you have used "it" so far. Is not "she" more usual? Which English do you prefer?SovalValtos (talk) 05:53, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"She" is fine. I was thinking about that, but I had been using "it" for quite a long time, and I wasn't in the mood to change them. --Biblioworm 15:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Biblioworm: "She" is more common on Wikipedia, but academic literature and reliable sources mainly use "it" nowadays. Cf. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-10-15/Op-ed Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given no one has strong opinion against, and all is now in she format; I intend to leave as is until a future change of consensus. SovalValtos (talk) 13:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a traditionalist (OK, a fuddy duddy) I like "she" :-) --Dweller (talk) 14:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DYK and photos

Having seen the photos on the RGJR museum ref, ~~it really would be remarkable if "Lieutenant-Colonel Forestier-Walker went to the bridge and told Captain Holland about the impact", and Holland was previously unaware.~~ Any chance of the photos being available for wikimedia?SovalValtos (talk) 06:09, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have since changed the text.SovalValtos (talk) 06:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good change there. I'll go back and make a few minor changes to some of the other things. As for the photos, it would be great if they were available, but I'm uncertain as to whether or not I want to go through all that permissions red tape. --Biblioworm 15:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Biblioworm Understood about the permissions palava. At least they are now easily found since you created the article and provided the link. Thanks.SovalValtos (talk) 20:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Consul

User:Biblioworm I see in one of your edit summaries that you are confirming HMS Consul was your intention. I have only found in the source references to Mr. C. W. Bennett, HM Consul at Reunion. A ship is rather different to an official. Would you consider making a suitable change to the text please? SovalValtos (talk) 06:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. I never noticed that when I was looking through the sources. One said "HMS Consul", but I failed to notice that it did not say "the HMS Consul". Thanks, --Biblioworm 15:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"blue lights"

What are "blue lights"? --Dweller (talk) 15:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dweller: It's supposed to mean flashlights that give off blue light. --Biblioworm 16:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard of such a thing. How did they do that with 19th century technology and, more importantly, why would they? NB In BrEng, "blue lights" is often used to mean emergency vehicles, especially ambulances, as in "the patient was tranported by blue lights...". I think this might need some explanation in the text... (A quick Googling found this example: "The final minutes of the PCT Board show a review is looking at allowing children to be taken to George Eliot Hospital by blue lights." --Dweller (talk) 16:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dweller: Well, that's what my source said. Click this link and read the part that starts with "5." --Biblioworm 17:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blue lights were hand held electric torches, perhaps of a lantern configuration, or as you would say, flashlights. They were certainly in existence at the time. Blue filters may have been used to assist in counteracting specific issues with illumination on water. But they existed. See Electric torch. They were known from 1887. It would not have looked like a maglite though. Irondome (talk) 17:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I did some more Googling and found "blue+lights"+ship&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ccjHVOq1NsvQ7AbO04HoAw&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=%22blue%20lights%22%20ship&f=false this! Bengal light is a redirect, currently, but the term has "bengal+lights" oodles of Ghits and I think it'd be fairly simple to demonstrate notability. --Dweller (talk) 17:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bengal lights is a kind of pyrotechnic. Certainly not what was mentioned. Unless they were firing rockets at the side from a range of about 5 feet. Dont try that at home. Irondome (talk) 17:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did you click the first link I provided? --Dweller (talk) 09:42, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another one. It's pretty conclusive. They're using flares for the search, presumably (OR!) because lanterns gave such poor light. --Dweller (talk) 09:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it is particularly relevant, but one of the CS Forester Hornblower Novels mentions their use. SovalValtos (talk) 13:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cape Town

From the Seychelles to Mauritius is 1,100 statute miles. From the Seychelles to Cape Town to Mauritius is 6,400 statute miles. Why in the world did they steam that extra 5,300 statute miles?!? Does anyone know the reason? Nick Beeson (talk) 16:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Half the troops she was carrying were the Yorks and Lancs, perhaps they were being collected from Cape Town? If anyone has access to Cape newspapers of the time it might have covered it. Ϣere SpielChequers 23:05, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Final fate

What happened to the wreck after it was evacuated and the baggage retrieval was abandoned? Sca (talk) 17:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hotchkiss Revolving Cannon

Were the five barreled guns Hotchkiss Revolving Cannon? Ϣere SpielChequers 23:07, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Hastings

Presumably she was named after Warren Hastings, but the obvious source is behind a paywall. Ϣere SpielChequers 23:07, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]