Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/HMS Warrior (1860)

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history | Assessment
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Warrior (1860)

edit
Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)


The first iron-hulled, armored warship in history. Most of the detail regarding the reasons for her construction and its impact has been covered in the class article; I'd like opinions as to how much is appropriate here vs. there, etc. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Particularly given that the class only includes two ships, I'd be inclined to allow for quite a lot of repetition between the two articles (plus, given the way many readers navigate the wiki, plenty will never click through to the class article, and will sadly miss any additional material there). I love the ship, btw; I was lucky enough to have dinner on board it the other year, and it was wonderfully atmospheric.

I'd take another look at the first part of the Design and description section. It assumes that the reader is familiar with the ship designs and politics of the 1850 - it doesn't explain why the Gloire was important, for example, or note the tensions between France and England. I suspect it would read more easily if it started with a simple description of the Warrior - ironclad, with steam engines and sails - then explained what the traditional designs had been like before that. It could then explain the impact of the Gloire, why this concerned England, note the innovations, and then note that it was evolutionary as much and revolutionary. Then carry on with its projected role in the fleet etc.?

How does it work now?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working from memory, but isn't the armour on the Warrior often likened to an armoured box, inside the ship? (Which is why it doesn't protect either ends). Again, from memory, a criticism I'm sure I've heard of the ship is that the combination of steam and sails was problematic; having sails required a huge crew, and in turn that meant a big ship, and that the ship's range under steam was then limited - but this may be popular myth! :) The local guides on the ship are keen to mention the ship's water distillery plant to visitors, but I'm not sure if this gets a mention in the article.

I'm going to have to think a bit on these comments.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NB: I've found a bit on the "box" design at the Warrior website, under "design". Hchc2009 (talk) 10:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added a bit on this.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The money figures could use modern equivalents, or contemporary comparisons.

That's been discussed before and the consensus was that they were capital costs that could not be directly compared.
You couldn't use the RPI, that's true, but you could use some of the GDP measures designed to compare the prices of capital projects - see their use on the Manchester Ship Canal or John Crichton-Stuart, 2nd Marquess of Bute. Alternatively, you could compare her price (£377,292) to other contemporary ships, perhaps the HMS Inconstant (£213,234), to give a sense of comparative costing? Hchc2009 (talk) 06:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have the time to source GDP figures so I'd prefer to use a comparison figure, but I can't find a figure for the Orlando-class frigates, the most direct predecessor to the Warriors.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if File:Portsmouth HMS Warrior citadel 13-10-2011 13-38-31.png might make a nicer picture than File:HMS Warrior between decks.jpg? (it lacks the date stamp etc., and still gets the guns in to the shot). Hchc2009 (talk) 19:23, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. - Dank (push to talk)

  • "Royal Navy's": the Royal Navy's
  • I don't know what "more evolutionary than not [evolutionary]" means.
    • Isn't that explained in the last part of the sentence?
  • "They were designed ... They were designed ... Rather they were designed": repetition
    • Fixed
  • "but they had a very different concept of operation to": but, unlike the Gloire, ... [and then finish the thought, with information from later in the paragraph]
    • Agreed
  • "credited with the ability", "credited with the nominal ability": repetition - Dank (push to talk) 00:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed.
  • "from Queen Victoria. In April 1868 she was part of a squadron ...": ... the ship ...
    • I think I got understood what you mean here, but check.
  • "the then Prince of Wales": the Prince of Wales
    • Done.
  • "In August the squadron departed for a cruise to Scotland. During the cruise, Warrior collided": In August, cruising with the squadron to Scotland, Warrior collided
    • Oh, my, yes.
  • " 'Bermuda' ": "Bermuda". Also, what's a Bermuda floating dry dock?
    • My mistake, it's the dry dock's name.
  • "floating dry dock across the Atlantic from Madeira to Ireland Island, Bermuda. After a time in dry dock": Some readers will assume a connection between the first mention of dry dock and the second.
    • Done.
  • "a refit that lasted until 1875. The work carried out included": a refit that lasted until 1875, including
  • "including the addition of a poop deck, a steam capstan, a shorter bowsprit and the replacement of her boilers.": the missing "and" before "a shorter" makes this nonparallel. But better would be: "including a new poop deck and steam capstan, a shorter bowsprit and replacement boilers."
    • Done.
  • "new figurehead carved": nonparallel. "new figurehead was carved"
  • "current berth", "is now": WP:DATED - Dank (push to talk) 01:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I've been fortunate enough to have visited Warrior, and have the following comments:

  • "The naval architect and historian David K. Brown commented" - this sounds a bit odd. 'Has written' might work better than 'commented'
    • Done.
  • Can anything be said about the crew's living conditions? They struck me as being very cramped-looking (even in comparison to the nearby HMS Victory and USS Constitution in Boston) due to the low ceilings and amount of room taken up by the internal sub-divisions and armour. The captain had an unusually nice cabin though! - there's some useful-looking material on the ship's official website here.
    • Cramped, yes, but I can't tell if it was any more cramped than Victory which had a larger crew, 850 vs 707, berthed on two decks each about half the length of Warrior's.
      • Can you add anything on this? That source should be reliable. Nick-D (talk) 08:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think that's more appropriate for the class article, but I'm only assuming that the crew slung their hammocks on the gun decks. Perhaps the idlers berthed down in the orlop, but I really don't know, but it makes any real comparison hard to do.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't agree I'm afraid - this is a really famous ship (she's literally the first thing most visitors to the historic dockyard at Portsmouth see when they leave the train station), and most readers are going to visit it and not the class article. The fact that this article gets about 300 page views a day while the class article only managed 20 views a day says a lot. Nick-D (talk) 10:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In September 1871, Warrior began a refit that lasted until 1875" - this seems really slow for the era (especially as it took just over two years to build the ship) - can anything be said about the cause of the delays?
    • Nothing I can quote, but I suspect that it was prolonged because it cut expenses and kept the royal dockyard workers gainfully employed. Lengthy refit times were endemic during this period.
  • The HMS Warrior Trust credits the MP John Smith (!) as being the prime mover in saving the ship: [1]
    • Good idea.
  • "In 1995 she received just over 280,000 visitors." - can this be updated? Nick-D (talk) 01:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments have now been addressed: it's good to see such a comprehensive article on this famous and important ship. Nick-D (talk) 09:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  • Copyedited as usual, the only thing still outstanding for me is "From 4 to 28 July, Warrior..." -- the previous paragraph mentions April 1868, then August, so best make clear what year you're talking about here...
  • Structure, coverage, referencing and image licensing look good to me. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Everything looked good to me. One question: the name of the article is "HMS Warrior (1860)". However, from the end of the article it sounded that the (current) name of the ship is "HMS Warrior (1860)", and that the "(1860)" was part of the name (and should be italicized). Did I miss understand? Inkbug (talk) 09:04, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, not at all; it's just that the ship's name for her active career was just HMS Warrior. The year being a felicitous coincidence between our naming policy and the Royal Navy's. Thanks for looking this over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Reluctant Oppose for the time being. Switch to Strong Oppose (see below).

  • Background: Basically I think this article is far too brief in its background. Like Hchc, I think there should be a lot more material from the class article put into this. I also think there should be a ‘Background to construction’ section explaining the historical context of the ship. This should include the historical context (ie. the tensions with France and why the invasion scares occurred) and more on the evolution of the design. At present the article says that historian David K. Brown has written, "What made [Warrior] truly novel was the way in which these individual aspects were blended together”, but doesn’t explain what most of these individual aspects actually are. This lack of background continues throughout the article and so it all lacks context. For instance; why was Warrior refitted only 4 years after launch, and again 7 years after that? I think there needs to be more on the rapid evolution of ironclads that led to Warrior being relegated so quickly. This evolution is touched upon in the lead but not in the article.
    • I've added a bit on her background to explain the context of the design. The individual aspects weren't important because the only new thing about Warrior was the armor, as I've now emphasized more clearly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • That looks better, but the individual aspects of her design are important, because this is an article about the ship. It still doesn't make any sense to have Brown's opinion on the individual aspects of the design without having first listed them. For instance, you have to read all the way down to the propulsion section to find out that Warrior had a propellor; this is quite an important aspect of her design and knowing it (plus everything else about the ship's design) before Brown's opinion is crucial to understanding. Ranger Steve Talk 10:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not so sure that those aspects were as important as you seem to think they were because only the armour was the really innovatory aspect, as Brown says. Nobody else seems to think that listing them is so important, so I'm not sure how much weight to give your belief.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:58, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's quite simple; if you know nothing about Warrior and read this article for the first time, the design section doesn't make any sense. If you're going to use a phrase saying 'these things' you need to explain what they are first - this is basic prose. Hchc has also said that there needs to be a basic description of Warrior to start with but you have not yet included one. Ranger Steve Talk 12:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Find me a source that says Warrior went into reserve in 1875 because she was obsolete. Lambert is quite clear that it was British policy to save money by putting large ships into reserve.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • That isn't exactly what I was asking for, but since you ask. On p39 Lambert says that Warrior was too large and costly for any other station (this doesn't quite equate to what you say). However, he's already established context for this on p35: "In 1870... Warrior had been left far behind by the ironclad revolution she had helped to start." Winton states on the back cover of his book "within a few years, she was out of date". As you might expect, there's a lot more inside the book. The warrior website has a whole page on the ship's obsolescence "within a decade" [2] and this is also touched on in the commission section. My point is that at present, you could read this article and think that Warrior was a top of the line, unmatched warship until one day she was suddenly hulked. This is obviously not the case, and her career was heavily influenced by the most important period of naval technological expansion in history - yet none of this appears in the article. Hence there is no context upon which to understand Warrior's history, and the article is sorely lacking as a result. Ranger Steve Talk 10:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Unfortunately the picture is more complicated than you realize. Warrior's sister Black Prince was assigned to the Coastguard in 1866, about four years after her completion and returned to that duty after being rearmed in 1867–68. And then she's assigned to the Channel Fleet in 1875, just about the time when Warrior went into reserve.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not sure how that's relevant. If you're trying to argue that Warrior wasn't really obsolete, I'm afraid you're barking up the wrong tree. This lack of context and the subject of the ship's obsolescence is a major omission from the article, and not including it does not reflect what numerous reliable sources have to say. My oppose remains until this is corrected. Ranger Steve Talk 23:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • You're asserting a connection between her obsolescence and being relegated to the 1st Reserve while that is demonstrably not true; they're two separate issues. The RN certainly didn't seem to think that Black Prince was obsolete when they reassigned her from the Coastguard to the Channel Fleet in 1875, nor when they originally assigned her to the Coastguard in 1866, and almost did the same thing to Warrior the following year before changing their minds.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • Once again, I'm not asserting any such thing and I don't know where you're getting this idea from. There are two separate issues here. One; there is no context in this article about the rapid evolution of ship's technology, which is a major theme in Warrior's story. Some information is needed, just like some was needed on what led to Warrior being built in the first place. Secondly; there's a large body of reliable sources - all of which are good enough to be used in the article already I might add - that make it quite clear that Warrior was obsolete in ten years. You might not be aware of this or like to admit it, but it is a quite simple, plain and uncontroversial fact. This information is not in the article and really should be in order for it to be A class. Ranger Steve Talk 06:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • My memory of Warrior was certainly that she was obsolete within a decade, which would match up with Ranger Steve's points above - and the website of the Warrior's current owners. Again from memory, it was the sails and steam that was the major problem - but it's been a couple of years since I last did naval history properly. Being obsolete in the 1870s doesn't mean that she couldn't see service - this was an era where even the idea of sudden obsolescence was only just coming into being, after all - but I'd agree with the sources mentioned that by then her design was already old-fashioned etc. Could it potentially go into the paragraph that begins "In September 1871, Warrior began a refit that lasted until 1875..."? Hchc2009 (talk) 18:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll not argue that Warrior didn't became obsolete; every warship since the Industrial Revolution has done so. Warrior was no different and I see little reason to mention it here as that's just assumed as a fact of life. The RN certainly didn't seem to think her and her sister as obsolete until around 1880 from what I can gather, assuming that an assignment to the Channel Fleet equals a belief that the ship was still a viable combatant. Now I can think of half a dozen reasons why they might have kept Warrior and Black Prince in first line service until then, but that would just be me speculating. I have no solid info on why the RN did anything with these ships, only the bare facts. I don't mention as to why a ship is retired/scrapped/whatever, unless I have a source that tells why, which is far rarer than you might think. So very few ships articles by me or anyone else explicitly address the issues of obsolescence. You're not making a successful case to treat Warrior any different from any other warship, IMO.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:58, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have no need to make a case to treat Warrior any differently; numerous reliable sources do that for me. The facts are quite simple; Warrior was obsolete within ten years. This is very closely related to the fact (that I've exhaustively pointed out) that this was a period of the greatest naval technological expansion in history. I don't care how other articles deal with it, the rapid evolution of ship technology leaving Warrior behind so quickly was a massive part in the story of this ship, as all the sources point out (to that list can be added the Pitkin guide to Warrior that is sold as the official guidebook in Portsmouth Historic Dockyard). Three of the references used in the article at present are all about the development of warships in the late Victorian era, but despite this the article doesn't mention anything about this development, which is vital context for this ship. As such the article fails to properly reflect sources and is not complete. Ranger Steve Talk 12:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Construction: Is dealt with in only one sentence in the Service career section (which is the wrong place for it). There’s no mention of the spiralling costs or the amusing launch. There is a lot of information on the construction process on the Warrior website which deserves to be in the article and I would suggest a separate construction section.
  • Museum ship: I think this deserves a separate section detailing the role it has had since it arrived in Portsmouth in 1987. At present the article only has two sentences on this and makes it seems as if she was only open for visitors in 1995 and only added to the historic dockyard in 2013. Given that she’s been a museum ship for 25 years, I think this part of her history needs more information. I also think there needs to be more information on the dockyard, why she went there and why it’s good that she’s there (the fact that Victory, M33 and Mary Rose are all close by for instance). This would give an opportunity to expand on visitor numbers (anyone who goes cannot avoid actually seeing Warrior at least, even if they don’t go on board).
I've had a go at this bit myself. There's probably room to expand it though. Ranger Steve Talk 14:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You've clarified that and I've clean it up a bit. I removed the section about functions aboard ship as we're not here to advertise it. You're asking for OR about how it's good that the ship is there with Victory, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's advertising to state simple facts when it is properly done. Warrior is a licensed wedding venue; that is quite pertinent to her current role and I think should be included. I thought my way of doing it worked quite well, but I'll leave it up to you as to how best to incorporate it. I also wasn't asking for traveller reviews saying how wonderful it is that the three ships are in such close company, I was rather thinking more of simply explaining the fact (seeing as the Mary Rose and Victory weren't in the article at all to start with) and letting the reader decide. Even so, it isn't difficult to find reliable sources that make the point [3]. There's also page 62 of Lambert. Ranger Steve Talk 10:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Referencing: A whole paragraph in the Service career section relies on one reference. At present, ref 25 might only be a reference to the collision with Royal Oak, rather than all of the detail above. On a similar note, ref 26 is too broad (ten pages). Individual facts that are not really related to one another should probably be cited separately (particularly notable facts like the threat to the Queen).
    • If one source is used for everything in one paragraph then it gets one cite at the end of the paragraph with all relevant page numbers. I will never cite individual facts or sentences all derived from the same source as that way lies madness (and considerably exceeds academic standards, I might add).
      • I know what you mean, but nonetheless, ref 25 (or 32 as it is now) covers a period of 4 years and half a dozen places. If the paragraphs content was all on roughly the same subject I wouldn't worry, but several totally different subjects are covered in this bit. How do I know that the solitary ref covers all of them (see WP:INTEGRITY)? A good example of this is that moving the referenced sentence on visitor figures has forced you to add a fact tag to a sentence on the ship's name, which wasn't ever in the reference. Separate facts really do sometimes need to have separate citations. Ranger Steve Talk 10:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't agree. WP:AGF adequately covers one source for an entire paragraph, especially when it lists a bunch of pages. And now that I've got my own copy of Wells, I might be adding more information from the same few pages, dunno yet.
  • Prose: I think this needs a good going over I’m afraid. There are quite a few examples where I’m uncertain of what is actually meant and others where the grammar needs work. To take a random example, the paragraph below needs work:
    • I don't generally agree with this assessment of the prose; nonetheless, I've rewritten some of it to reflect your concerns.
The ship was assigned to the Channel Squadron under the command of Captain Arthur Cochrane. In March 1863, Warrior escorted the royal yacht bringing Princess Alexandra of Denmark to Britain to marry the Prince of Wales. In mid-1863 the Channel Fleet toured the ports of Great Britain, where the ship was the centre of attention.
Don't like your phrasing, although the number of visitors is a good idea. Rephrased it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did Cochrane command the ship or the squadron?
I'll grant you this one.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Was Princess Alexandra on the yacht or on Warrior? Better structure would be In March 1863, Warrior served as an escort for the Royal Yacht, which carried Princess Alexandra to Britain for her marriage to the Prince of Wales (not perfect but you get the idea).
Sorry, I don't see any problem here; your suggestion seems clumsier to me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly not the best example of correction, but the problem is tense. Escorted and bringing - perhaps escorted and brought? Ranger Steve Talk 10:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, now I see your concern. Fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Was Warrior the centre of attention in Great Britain or in the ports? Better structure would be In 1863, the Channel Squadron embarked on a tour of the major ports of Great Britain. Warrior became the centre of attention amongst the public and over 6,000 people a day viewed the ship at each of the ports that the squadron visited (ref to Warrior website).
Rephrased and expanded.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I know this looks unduly harsh, but I note only 13 edits to this article since it was made GA. I think it’ll take a bit more work than that to move it up a class. Ranger Steve Talk 09:39, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've just noticed that this last comment doesn't sound like what I meant it to mean! What I meant was that I'm sorry if all of these comments seem quite harsh, and I think with a bit more work it'll improve quite rapidly. Ranger Steve Talk 20:19, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review, while I might disagree with some of what you suggest, many of your comments have been quite helpful.

I'm away for a short while from now, but can respond to any more comments on Monday. Ranger Steve Talk 13:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Switch to Strong Oppose. I feel this article does not fully reflect the story of Warrior as given by numerous reliable sources that are already in use in the article. I cannot understand the resistance to putting basic facts and context in, but at present only particular aspects of the ship's story have been incorporated whilst overs are being ignored. As such I feel it fails A2 of the A Class criteria. Additionally, the article lacks any basic description of the ship's characteristics before it starts detailing selected aspects of the technology on board, and therefore fails A3. Again, I detect an unwillingness to incorporate any of this information. I have no intention of incorporating it myself as I suspect that would only lead to an edit war, but it means I cannot support it for A-Class. Ranger Steve Talk 12:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Comments

  • Broadside ironclad is one other well-cited name for the type which should be added to the prose in addition to Armored Frigate.
    • Done.
  • "it required 600 men to raise it into the stern", cited but I don't understand how this would happen in a ship with only 707 men total, and the officers certainly wouldn't be involved in the manual labor of this operation.
  • Complement uncited Kirk (talk) 21:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • HMSWarrior.org has the crew required for lifting the propeller at 400 [4]; I found a couple of sites with the crew specifically split up into specialities, with only 455 seamen and boys [Example http://www.stvincent.ac.uk/Heritage/Warrior/statistics.html] so the 400 number makes more sense to me than having all the marines and stokers helping.
    • I read the snippet in the source and I would translate the jargon into something like "a ship-board crane (assuming that's what he meant by 'sheer') on the stern was used by approximately 4 hundred men to hoist the shaft up using block and tackle (falls)". Some sources have the time required for the 10 ton anchors at about 2-3 hours but there wasn't any information about the time required to lift a 30 ton propeller shaft. Kirk (talk) 16:57, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Both Ballard and Lambert quote 600 men, which would be an all-hands evolution, I imagine. Since you're changing over to sail power, the only engine room personnel needed would be those required to shut down the engines and boilers. Ballard even mentions that it was the "favorite" deck evolution among the stokers in his description of the procedure. He doesn't give times for any of these evolutions, unfortunately. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • You'd think the HMS Warrior museum's information would be more correct in this instance; they have the propeller + shaft at 32 tons instead of just the propellor at 10 tons. I looked in vain for a diagram of this hoisting - this must be described at the museum somewhere!
  • I also want to comment on the issues rased above by RangerSteve.
    • The infobox as far as I can tell is complete, accurate and cited in the prose and it a good summary of the basic description of the ship's characteristics, so I don't understand that criticism.
    • Sturm has written this at level of detail which I think is consistent with summary style. I see the point of adding more detail about the birth of ironclad warships and the museum ship, if we use USS Constitution as a guide this article could use some information about the ship as museum in that section, but that article is FA and this one is being reviewed for A. The birth of ironclad warships is very chaotic because the technology changed so rapidly so its hard to summarize for a reader when different historians can't agree on basic facts, I think that one is better left linked out to the Ironclad warship article.
    • 'Obsolete' is not a technical ship term, its more of an opinion, in many cases it could be an individual historian's opinion that we cite. I'm sure you two could find citations with different times when the ship was obsolete - one probably claims it was shortly after being built since all the guns were replaced 3 years after being commissioned (which might be addressed by Parsecboy's question below). The facts appear to me to be in the article and the reader can decide when it was 'obsolete'.
  • Support - I think you probably should add more in the museum ship section for FA (How could you leave out its a licensed wedding venue??? :) but I think it meets the A criteria. Kirk (talk) 20:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are absolutely entitled to your own opinion and to support this article, but I don't like the idea of editors being asked to comment on other editors just because they don't support an article. But anyway, to address some of your concerns briefly. Infobox; should not be used as part of the prose. I don't know how I can put this any more plainly; the design section doesn't make any sense in plain English. Here's a simplistic example. "Churchill was a man. These characteristics made him great." What characteristics? These need to be summarised before this quote for the quote to have any meaning. Two editors have now asked for just such a summary of the characteristics. Ironclads; The ship that practically started the ironclad revolution should have some more context on that revolution and how it fitted into it, just as reliable sources do. Obsolescence; No, they all say ten years. This is a well known aspect of Warrior's career, and leaving it out is starting to look more and more like cherry picking. Additionally readers cannot make up their own mind, because, there is no context on Ironclad evolution to allow them to do so (my previous point). Obsolete doesn't need to be a nautical term, this is Wikipedia and relies on reliable published sources. This article does not reflect what those sources say, so I'm sorry to say that in my opinion it fails A2 at A class. Ranger Steve Talk 21:06, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just to further emphasise the point on obsolescence and how it relates to the ship, the guidebook has several paragraphs on how the appearance of Monitor, Captain and Devastation reflected the changing design of warships and in "1871, the year that introduced HMS Devastation, the first British ocean-going, mastless battleship, also saw the end of Warrior's career as a front line warship. Ten years of of service during a time of rapid change had made her obsolescent." The same information is reflected in three other reliable sources, and to be quite honest, I imagine it's probably in most of the other books on Warrior as well. This stuff needs to be in the article for it to satisfy A2 IMHO. Ranger Steve Talk 22:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • A very spirited discussion! On the issue of specifications please review some of the A/FA ship articles and come back and consider this one; maybe we missed something specific you can list? On the design section not making sense, the one quibble I can see is the 'discussion' doesn't have its own subsection in design but it all reads ok to me (just reread it). Also review those A/FA ship articles how they handle 'obsoleteness' since I don't remember it being very common & I agree with Sturms' comment. Your quote sounds reasonable to me, so I would add it if you think its an important opinion for the reader to consider. Kirk (talk) 22:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't intend to review this article against other articles, I'm reviewing it against reliable sources on the subject, which is what the article should reflect. I'm glad you think the design section reads ok now, Sturm has improved it since my last comment with the simple addition of a few specifications, so that it now makes sense in English. I still think the service and ship's obsolescence lacks context, so I'll expand that sentence making use of the quotes from Lambert and the guidebook later. If it doesn't get deleted, I might be able to switch to support. Ranger Steve Talk 08:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sure, it's in plenty of books, as you've already mentioned, but they're all judgements made in hindsight and don't reflect how the RN treated Warrior and her sister. The placement of Black Prince in 1st Reserve/coastguard after her rearmament in 1866–67 and the plan to do the same for Warrior strongly argues that there's no correlation between being placed in reserve and obsolescence. This is further reinforced by the fact that Black Prince was assigned to the Channel Fleet in 1875, just about the same time that Warrior finished her lengthy refit and was assigned to the Coastguard reinforces the lack of correlation. I think that the website and the guidebook have failed to consider Black Prince's career in assessing the reasons why Warrior had the career that she did. I further think that the sources have committed presentism in thinking that assignment to the 1st Reserve/Coastguard is the same thing as being assigned to the Reserve Fleet in modern times.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
    • Does the explosive shell have the same performance characteristics as the solid shot? If so, make that clear, and if not, can you add them if they're available?
      • Probably not, but data isn't available.
    • What type of iron was used for the armor? Wrought? Cast?
      • Good catch.
    • Can we move the photo of the restored gun deck so it doesn't impinge on the section header below?
      • Done.
    • Nelson might be famous enough to warrant leaving out his first name, but probably not for general readers.
      • Good point.
    • Link Tudor navy for Mary Rose Parsecboy (talk) 18:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/HMS_Warrior_(1860)&oldid=560802985"