Jump to content

Talk:Warrior-class ironclad

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleWarrior-class ironclad has been listed as one of the Warfare 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 23, 2010Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on September 24, 2010.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the Warrior class ironclads HMS Warrior and HMS Black Prince towed a floating drydock to Bermuda in 1869?

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Warrior class ironclad/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
  • 1: Well written:
    • The lead uses the word construction a fair bit in the first paragraph.
    • Although I understand the meaning of ironclad, the casual reader may not realise that it usually describes warships. I'd perhaps suggest "ocean going warships" but linking it to ironclad (although that may not be accurate either...).
    • Lead: It does summarise the article, but its a wee bit short and could be a little bit longer. Also it alludes to an invasion scare that isn't expanded on in the main text.
      • What else do you think is worthy of inclusion? I've added a bit on the invasion scare.
        • Like I said, its all there, but just very compressed. For instance, the re-armament weaponry is described, but not the original. Black Prince's role as a training ship is mentioned, but Warrior's is summarised to being hulked only (despite a slightly longer and more varied period of use. Ranger Steve (talk) 21:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2: Factually accurate:
    • The first sentence of Design and description is uncited before the quote. I fully agree with the text, but perhaps because of the prose it looks a tiny bit original researchy....
      • That's a paraphrase of Brown's text right before the quote. Should I cite it to that?
    • General Characteristics: It says that it was unable to ram, but were there any warships capable of such action at the time? I just don't really imagine it was a consideration of the designers.
      • Supposedly their bows were "stiffened for ramming", but nothing more. It's rather surprising that ramming became such a big deal before Lissa or even Hampton Roads. But I guess that people were thinking that armored ships would be able to slice right through wooden ones.
    • Propulsion: Was it only Warrior's prop that could be raised? Was it also the largest raise-able prop screw ever made? According to Winton, it was "the largest hoisting screw ever made (except for that in Black Prince)".
    • Propulsion* Any idea why Black Prince was always slower? Not important, but if its known...
    • Service: Lambert and Winton say that Warrior was named Oil Fuel Hulk C77 in 1942, not 1945.
    • Service: Perhaps a brief explanation of Vernon or a link for that bit.
    • Service: Alongside implies that Warrior is next to Victory. They're a good 500m apart in different parts of the dockyard.
  • 3: Coverage:
    • Fine
  • 4: Neutral:
    • Fine
  • 5: Stable:
    • Fine
  • Overall: On hold.

Otherwise all good. Concise but detailed. Good read. Ranger Steve (talk) 19:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]