Talk:SB Centaur

Text import

I have had a brief look at the massive improvements since my last edit and few thoughts occur. The article is looking brilliant- the images less so- the image of two vessels in the swin is generic- I can't see why it shouldn't be a image of the Centaur. The Centaur existed with bowsprit and without it will be harder to find one of her with a bowsprit and I have failed to take a shot of her actually sailing but I think it should be considered. The quality of the shot of the Edith May is an embarrassment. It was only used to illustrate the point that these barges (normally? cn)sailed in port without the mainsail. The reference to the East Swin is hanging- and needs to be incorporated in the text. In the diagram, the jib and the staysail are possibly wrongly coloured- these sails were stowed below decks so didn't need the UV protection of ochre.ClemRutter (talk) 08:20, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi ClemRutter. Thanks for that. I am weak on images, so the nudge is appreciated. Checking commons I find a number of the Centaur posted by you. Any idea where/if I can find one of her under sail? Gog the Mild (talk) 09:29, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Inconsistencies in references

I still have a nagging doubt that there may have been 2 ships Centaur 1895 and Centaur 1899. March p 170 says that the LRTC Centaur (Rochester barge) was lost in 1930 after colliding with Aspbodel- there was an enquiry- so this could be checked. (this was the barge that was also hit by the CMB). The Medway barge race of 6th June 1899 is described in March p152 "it was a glorious day with light easterly winds, when Centaur only completed the day before, led the fleet over the line." then "with Centaur leading Giralda by 2 1/2 minutes a slendid performance on the part of an untried barge". Any thoughts. ClemRutter (talk) 09:22, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

ClemRutter I struggled with the same discrepancies, but the thought of two Centaurs never occurred to me. As I am used to working on Roman era articles the minor discrepancy in reports from over 100 years ago didn't ring any alarm bells. Perhaps they should have. I shall investigate as you suggest. Thank you. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:33, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I had totally forgotten (memory problem) that I have uploaded photographs of the two Centaurs. see: Commons:Category:Thames barges. A lot of very slick looking websites have missed this problem. I have started an article on the redlink SB George Smeed

The whole World War 1 section needs to be rewritten, as it surely was the Kent barge that played piggy back with the CMB. The copious web stuff written by the Essex barge owners and seems to have got it wrong--and adopted the Kent barges history. --ClemRutter (talk) 07:55, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ed! (talk · contribs) 00:57, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Will look at this one. —Ed!^(talk) 00:57, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)

1. It is reasonably well written:

   No problems with dub or dab links, however, checklink article shows one recently dead link.

Sigh. It went down seven days ago. Renewed.

1. Copyvio tool is showing a yellow light, I suspect it's because of the quote but picking up a few other things too, namely similar phrasing on some sections ("damaged by a tug"; "Dunkirk, Calais, Antwerp, Ostend, Alderney, Bruges and the Netherlands, from a variety of home ports including Dover, Rochester, London, Lowestoft, Goole, Shoreham, Southampton and Newport." Suggest further rearranging some of these phrases.

They came up when I did a pre-nom check. I thought I had fixed them. I have now. Still a high number, but not due to any avoidable closeness, outside of the quote.

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable:

   Source spotchecks Refs 9 and 13 are active and back up material in the article.

2. It is broad in its coverage:

   Not Yet

   • "moving 150 tons of loose cargo at a time" -- whatever convert unit is best here would be helpful.

Convert template added to both instances of "tons".

1. • "In 1900 there were over 2,000 Thames sailing barges in operation.[4]" -- I imagine these were in private individual employ, vs military, government or large companies? Just want to see if info is out there on it.

They were all in private ownership, which I have added. (it was in the source.) I can't find a source splitting the size of the owners. My feel from the sources is that most were owned by medium to large concerns, but there is no quantitative data on this.

1. • World War II: "The rest of the conflict was spent doing war work.[9]" -- Any general idea what this work entailed? And was the boat doing this under private ownership or something else? Should be clear.

She remained privately owned and doing the same - more or less - as always. Which is why I didn't think to specify. Now specified.

1. • Owners: Any way we could get that in a table? And are these dates that the boat was sold? Any info on any of the prices?

I had them in a table and it seemed less readable. I will revert to that if it is a deal breaker. I have clarified what the dates mean.

1. It follows the neutral point of view policy:

   Pass No problems there.

2. It is stable:

   Pass No problems there.

3. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:

   Pass Images are appropriately cited under CC licenses.

4. Other:

   On Hold Pending a few fixes. —Ed!^(talk) 01:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ed!. Thanks for picking this up. I thought that it was going to languish forever. Your points above all addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 05:16, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I think that works! Passing for GA now. —Ed!^(talk) 15:35, 12 January 2019 (UTC)