Talk:Mary Rose

Lead
An editor with a track record of being reverted by numerous editors in various articles is persisting in altering "The precise cause of her sinking is still not clear because of conflicting testimonies and a lack of conclusive physical evidence" to "The precise cause of her sinking is subject to conflicting testimonies and a lack of conclusive evidence." I think the original version, which states clearly that the cause is unclear is preferable to the vaguer version proposed by Delacroix-uk. S/he has been asked to stop edit warring and discuss his/her proposed alteration here. Comments welcome.  Tim riley  talk   13:45, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Lead image
Two images have fairly recently occupied the lead.

I prefer the one on the right (COI I took it) firstly because it shows the ship now. Yes water pouring over it may be more spectacular but its not how the ship has looked for a number of years. It also shows more of the full length of the ship. The one of the right is a higher technical quality with a higher resolution and less noise.©Geni (talk) 09:02, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to say I agree. Left one looks interesting, but right one has better encyclopedic value and higher quality. And it's not like we are voting delete, the first image will still be around somewhere. --LordPeterII (talk) 07:44, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

"The Downs, west of Kent"
The second sentence of the second section of the heading Sails and rigging says:
 * In March 1513 a contest was arranged off The Downs, west of Kent, in which she raced against nine other ships.

According to the Wikipedia article The Downs is placed east of Kent. Is this a lapsus? LittleGun (talk) 12:27, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Sailing performance placement in article
The placement of the discussion of Mary Rose's sailing performance in the section headed Sails and rigging is misleading. Good performance of a sailing vessel relies on both the hull shape and the efficiency of the rig – this is something that is not always understood. Because this is clear to those who work in this field, it is not easy to find a reference that clearly states this point. However it is tangential to such discussions. For instance "...confirming that the shape of the hull would have provided a good performance under sail" "‘Windward Sailing Capabilities of Ancient Vessels’ (Palmer, 2009b) provided the theoretical physical basis for calculating the windward capabilities of ancient ships as a function of the efficiency of the hull and the rig." Palmer is perhaps the clearest (though he is only talking about sailing to windward): "The windward performance ... depends upon the hydrodynamic efficiency of the hull and the aerodynamic efficiency of the sails. ... it is only when they come together on a complete vessel ... that their combined potential is realised.

Extensive discussions about hull shape and performance in the context of later sailing vessels can be found in David R MacGregor's books, particularly in Fast Sailing Ships and The Tea Clippers. (Of course, these sources generally discuss speed – however things like sea-kindliness are important factors for a ship with broadside guns.)

I will therefore move the coverage of sailing performance into a separate section to avoid any confusion from the unintended implication that this is all dictated by the actual sails. This is also a good place to introduce the surprising (to the archaeologists) length/beam ratio. I hope to make these changes later today. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 08:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)