Talk:HMS Warrior (1860)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jackyd101 (talk · contribs) 11:22, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

GA on hold
Hi there, I have reviewed this article against the good article criteria and although I am not quite prepared to pass the article for GA immediately, I don't think there is a long way to go. I have listed below the principle problems which prevent this article from achieving GA status and I have also appended a list of other comments which, whilst they are not essential for GA, may help in the future development of the article. The article now has seven days to address these issues, and should the contributors disagree with my comments then please indicate below why you disagree and suggest a solution, compromise or explanation. Further time will be granted if a concerted effort is being made to address the problems, and as long as somebody is genuinely trying to deal with the issues raised then I will not fail the article. I am aware that my standards are quite high, but I feel that an article deserves as thorough a review as possible when applying for GA and that a tough review process here is an important stepping stone to future FAC attempts. Please do not take offence at anything I have said, nothing is meant personally or maliciously and if anyone feels aggrieved then please notify me at once and I will attempt to clarify the comments in question. Finally, should anyone disagree with my review or eventual decision then please take the article to WP:GAR to allow a wider selection of editors to comment on the issues discussed here. Well done on the work so far.--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:22, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Issues preventing promotion

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * "She was commissioned earlier in August to conduct her sea trials" After thinking about this for a minute, I think you need a sub-clause "She was commissioned earlier, in August, to conduct her sea trials".
 * "command of Captain Arthur Cochrane at this time" - "command of Captain Arthur Cochrane at this time "
 * Use HMS consistently (I prefer on first usage of name only). HMS Vernon is currently missing prefix.
 * All of these are fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Something missing here. In the lead it states that "HMS Warrior was the first armour-plated, iron-hulled warship; built for the Royal Navy in response to the first ironclad warship, the French armoured frigate Gloire, launched in 1859. For a brief period the two Warrior-class ironclads were the most powerful warships in the world, being virtually impregnable to the naval guns of the time." - I can't see anything on this in the body of the article at all. not only should everything in the lead be referenced elsewhere in the article, but this (alongside its preservation) is the thing that makes this ship so especially notable. It should all be expanded anyway - the first paragraph of "Design and description" at Warrior-class ironclad could sit (with minor edits) quite comfortably in the same position in this article (although there too there are things in the lead (i.e. "Gloire and her sisters" not mentioned fully in the main article).


 * I was thinking that the class article was a more appropriate venue for this sort of material, but perhaps not. I've rewritten the lede and added the para from the class article.
 * Better, although links in the lead should appear on first use in the main body of the article as well (unless they've changed that rule). My understanding of Wikipedia is that an article should be able to stand on its own in terms of the information it provides - a reader can click elsewhere for additional context or detail, but everything required to understand the subject of the article should be accessible on a single page. This is now fine.
 * I was never aware that links in the lede were supposed to be duplicated in the main body and I've never received comments on that issue at my FACs.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "While on a Mediterranean deployment, the ship was present when HMS Captain was lost during a severe storm on 7 September 1870" - Captain was lost in the Atlantic, not the Mediterranean. I assume Warrior was on the way to or back from the Mediterranean at the time. Can you clarify this in the text?
 * Done.
 * "In April 1875, the ship was recommissioned, having been relegated to the First Reserve where she served as a guardship at Portland" - timing issue here. If the the ship was in refit until 1875, how can it have been a guardship at the same time?
 * Missing key word, "now"
 * Warrior is quite a well known tourist attraction and it would be good to have more information on its role. In the intro it says "Listed as part of the National Historic Fleet, Core Collection" but this does not appear in the main body of the article. It is part of Portsmouth Historic Dockyard which is not mentioned and provides an interesting counterpoint to the nearby HMS Victory which I'm sure is covered by promotional materials if nothing else. In addition, the ship houses an archive and is also an entertainment venue: the official website can be used to source at least some of this.
 * Added the appropriate cites, but not much extra material in the text since we're not supposed to advertise her. Let me know if you'd like more material added, but the ship's website is listed in the external links section. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * My issue here is that Warrior is best known to most people today as a tourist attraction and yet there is very little on the ship in this role and nothing from the last 18 years - this is an area of the article that really should be developed further and the ship's own website is a convenient place to get more information. However you source it I do think it is worth mentioning that the ship houses an archive although I also agree that such information should be purely factual rather than promotional. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:41, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There's nothing on the ship's website about any sort of archive. The main focus seems to be outreach programs to local schools, but I'm not really sure if that's a notable point.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * archive. I'll pass this now though. Good work!--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * It is stable.
 * It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * a Pass/Fail:

Other comments
(These comments are not essential to passing GAN)
 * I'm not making it essential for GAN, but if I saw this at FAC I would expect to see a "reception" section addressing how Warrior was received by British naval and public opinion and how the introduction of the class impacted the navies of other countries - was this a step in an arms race for example?
 * All of that material is more appropriate to the class article, IMO, but I agree that it should be covered; it's just a question of finding sources discussing those aspects.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:35, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, although see above regards completeness.--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:41, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * True, but there is a bit on her reception when she toured the UK in 1863.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "The Immortal Warrior Britain’s First and Last Battleship" covers that in a fair bit of detail but I don't have that to hand any more.©Geni 22:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)