Talk:Mary Rose/2010/July

Copy edits on featured articles
They need to be done much more carefully. I gave this a cursory read when it was featured and found several spelling, punctuation and grammatic errors. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 15:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You corrected two minor typos. What do you want, a medal? Malleus Fatuorum 20:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Coordinates
I don't see the point of the use of 50, at least not with "display=title". Clicking on it I discover it's the co-ordinates of the Mary Rose Museum, which has its own article and its own coord. I expected the co-ordinates here to be of the wreck site. If co-ordinates are given, I suggest both (wreck site and museum site) should be given at the end, with appropriate explanation, rather than one being given at the start with no explanation. jnestorius(talk) 19:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I think its because the Mary Rose is still a ship (albeit rather worn, but complete enough to still be called a ship or remains of a ship by most). That ship is now at the museum in dry dock, and not at the wreck site. To me I think there's still enough solid matter to be followed from the sinking site to its present location. Co-ordinates to the wreck site would be a good idea if they aren't already present though. Ranger Steve (talk) 19:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I can follow your argument, but the mere fact that it needs such explication indicates that it's not sufficiently self-explanatory to be at the top of the article. jnestorius(talk) 21:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I also clicked on the coordinates hoping to learn exactly where in the Solent the wreck was found - and was disappointed to discover that the coords were for the museum. Aa77zz (talk) 21:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Wreck co-ordinates added inline. I would rather see them as "display-title", rather than those of the museum as shown at present. Check them on Bing Maps, not Google Earth, if you want accurate placing. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * (e/c) I agree that the sinking co-ordinates should be in the article (I'm surprised to see that they don't appear to have been), but I think the co-ordinates above the infobox should remain as they are (ie. the drydock). This is common practice on wiki, as it gives the reader the actual location of the subject of the article. The wreck site is part of its history, but it isn't there anymore, so following a link to an open stretch of water will be just as confusing for many. I'll try and find time tomorrow to verify the current co-ordinates inserted with a couple of the refs listed in the article, unless Peter (who wrote this article) beats me to it Ranger Steve (talk) 21:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't mind if you beat me to it, Steve. I've got too much quality vacationing to do. :-) One thing, though: am I the only one who thinks that placing a bunch of coordinates in text, in the lead looks, uhm, textually unharmonious? Couldn't we confine the full coordinates along with the link to the footnote?
 * Peter Isotalo 21:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's one option. Another would be to have the exact co-ordinates in the main text in the sinking section. It is quite specific for the lead, and does appear to be slightly inharmonious (think that's the correct negative!). BTW Moonraker, I only assumed the co-ords might need checking based on your edit summary before I posted about the ref not necessarily being reliable. No offence intended! Anywhere nice for the hols Peter? Ranger Steve (talk) 21:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the confusion: try it on Google Earth to see my problem. The point about too much detail in the lead (plus the ref) is valid. Easily solved by using title co-ordinates! --Old Moonraker (talk) 22:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * (e/c again!) Or, another option would be to put both co-ords in the infobox in the fate section. Ranger Steve (talk) 22:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I heartily endorse that option. It may well be the case that an editor versed in wikipolicy knows that the co-ordinates floating at the top corner will be "current-location-of-largest-collection-of-remnants" but for the vast majority of users that will not be so. I am not suggesting putting the sinking-location there instead, I'm suggesting putting nothing there because neither location will be obvious enough to the average reader. jnestorius(talk) 23:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The current wording in the infobox: "sank in battle now a museum ship" neatly lends itself to that solution. While there, does anyone have a view on the "Museum ship" link? That article doesn't appear to be about ships in museums. --Old Moonraker (talk) 05:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll admit that the Vasa Museum actually has several other vessels that are "museum ships" in the true sense of the term, but it still seems fair to say that Vasa is a museum ship. The major difference compared to Victory and various modern battleships is that she's simply too fragile to float or be entered by the general public.
 * Peter Isotalo 09:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The position of the wreck is given as 50°46′N 1°06′W. This is clearly to the nearest minute (where 1' in latitude = 1 nautical mile = 1854 m). Googling I found this site which includes a very detailed map of the wreck with coordinates. From the map it appears that the wreck was centred at 50°45.8' N 1°6.25' W – which is in agreement with the position given in the article. Based on this information (and using this link to calculate distances) I've changed the distance to the entrance to Portsmouth harbour to 3km (rather than 2.7km) but kept the same lat and long. Aa77zz (talk) 21:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Conservation
I decided to be bold and remove this: "PEG was sprayed over ship timbers for several years so that it would penetrate the wood and gradually replace the water. The years of PEG saturation were followed by a long period of controlled air drying." from the conservation section. Their function was unclear to me. At first glance they seemed to refer to the conservation proces of the Vasa, whitch isn't relevant for this article. Maybe they were meant to give more information about PEG. But that information is repeated in the description of the conservation of the Mary Rose. Also, since they weren't referenced I saw no harm in deleting them. No worries, Ineverheardofhim (talk) 14:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)