The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the British ironcladHMS Enterprise had a wooden hull and iron upperworks which made her the first ship of composite construction in the Royal Navy?
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
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
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
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
"this still left a 120° arc fore and aft on which no gun could bear". An arc (in this context) should be unbroken; I'm not sure whether you mean to say that no targeting was possible over an arc 60° fore and another arc 60° aft (or two numbers that add up to 120), or whether it's 120° fore and 120° aft ... if the latter, perhaps it would be better to say what was covered. - Dank (push to talk) 20:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Just a general query about the history of this ship, I notice on the HMS Enterprise page that it mentions that in 1861 a wooden screw sloop was laid down, and then in 1862, that Enterprise and the planned Circassian seemed to switch names. Was it as simple as that, and a direct and deliberate switch? Miyagawa(talk)18:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): ; I've done some copyediting and everything looks good. I got reverted on "paid off" and I think we understand each other. In the notes, "the ship cost 4,596,080 in current pounds" looks a little odd to me without the symbol for pounds, but I'm not grading off for that.
That stood out for me as well. Also, 'current pounds' won't be current in a few month's time. Perhaps a better way to put it would be more along the lines: 'Adjusted for inflation, the ship cost £4,596,080 (October 2010).' Martocticvs (talk) 19:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Actually, through the magic of the template Sturm used, the figure will be accurate next year ... but the reader won't know that the figure stays current unless we tell them, so I've added another template that will keep the year current as well. See what you think. - Dank (push to talk) 02:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): ; Sturm's work is generally very careful. I fixed a rounding error from the source that's online, and I've asked at WT:SHIPS for a quick check of the information from Conway's (I don't have that edition here).
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused): ; the breadth of coverage is typical for these ships. More would be needed for GAN only if other editors turn up substantial new information, I think.
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 image is appropriate with a correct rationale.
.jpg)
.svg)
b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 