Talk:HMS Defence (1861)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

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
 * 1) 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)
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Agreed.
 * 1) 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)