Talk:HMS Defence (1861)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Skinny87 (talk) 09:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   'She became guard ship on the Shannon when she recommissioned' - S would this be a second recommissioning, presumably after being de-commissioned for the '72-'74 refit?

   Does that need to be specified?

   Probably wouldn't hurt to clarify.

   How does it read now?

   'Both breech-loading guns were new designs from Armstrong and much was hoped for them' - Not entirely sure of this, but 'from them' or 'of them' sounds more grammatically correct to me.

   Agreed

   As you did for the Valiant, can we have a footnote on the usage of Armoured frigate/ironclad?

   Done

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Second paragraph of the first section on Design and Description is uncited.

   Cited.

   Do we know why she was re-rigged as a barque for a short period? Was this usual for ironclads?

   I have no idea, probably to experiment with different rigs to see what worked best for such a large ship.

   That's fine.

   And any idea why the original armament was reduced?

   When, 1867? The 7 and 8-inch muzzle-loaders were heavier than her original guns.

   Adding that would be great.

   Done.

   When were the 110-pound guns taken off of the Defence?

   When she refit in '67.

   Why were the ends of the ship left entirely unprotected? This seems like a major design flaw after all.

   Explained.

   'Defence damaged her propeller and rudder when she was nearly blown ashore herself in March 1872.' - Was this due to heavy winds?

   They actual struck the bottom in the trough of one wave, but I couldn't figure out how to explain that easily.

   What you've said above makes sense, so I'd add that.

   How does it read now?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The HMS Defence (1868) picture is currently breaking the section breaks between Armament and Armour. Suggest moving to the right-hand side.

   Agreed.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Interesting article. A few things to look at, and it can pass. Skinny87 (talk) 09:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem, points added above. Skinny87 (talk) 14:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks good now, so I'll pass. Skinny87 (talk) 16:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)