Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mary Rose/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:35, 8 March 2010.

Mary Rose

 * Nominator(s): Peter Isotalo 23:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Hot on the heels of my most recent FA comes the Mary Rose, the reason that the first was updated in the first place. I've been working on this article for over six months and have been diving (heh) deep into sources on everything from early modern naval tactics to musical archaeology. For the first time in the five years that I have been active on Wikipedia I contacted a cultural institution for direct assistance, the Mary Rose Trust, and scored big. My work on the article flattered the Trust enough to secure the first Wikmedia-related image donation from a UK organization, and that generosity even received some press coverage.

I'd like to extend my appreciation to all those who have helped out with copyediting, grammar tweaking and reviewing, including, but not limited to, Nick-D, Tony and Malleus Fatuorum. And of course all the editors who helped build up the original article long before I even decided to make a major project of it, like Benea, Viv Hamilton and Neddyseagoon. I'd also like to thank Mike Peel and Durova who were both immensely helpful in assisting with the image donation. They also helped me get all kinds of snags I managed to get myself into due to my inexperience with GLAM interaction.

So, after that long and rambling preamble, I hand over to your loving care and careful scrutiny a somewhat less rambling, but certainly much longer, article. I look forward to your advice, criticism and comments.

Peter Isotalo 23:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments. No dab links or dead external links. The images are truly impressive; it was a pleasure reviewing the alt text. I made a few small fixes and see no problems, except that File:Mary Rose Guns ForeBronzeCulverin RearWroughtIronCannon.png is missing alt text . Ucucha 00:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought the regular description was actually sufficient in that case. Alt text added, though. Peter Isotalo 06:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Ucucha 12:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Image check: 23 or so images (I lost count); all are Public Domain (old, one released) or CC-by-SA with the author attached; they're all on Commons except for File:Mary Rose Guns ForeBronzeCulverin RearWroughtIronCannon.png, which needs it's wiki-en version deleted in favor of the commons version. The disputed tag on File:Charles Brandon, 1st Duke of Suffolk from NPG.jpg is of no concern as policy holds that it is free use. Captions are good on all images. Good job! -- Pres N  04:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Deletion done. Ucucha 16:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment:
 * Contents:
 * The 2nd (excavation) and 3rd paragraph (ship history) in the lead should switch places to conform to the temporal sequence.
 * The lead isn't a chronological account of the ship's history and strays from that even in the first paragraph. The second paragraph is where it is because the archaeological aspects of the ship are more relevant to its modern status than its military history. The Mary Rose is well known because it was excavated, salvaged and put on display, not because of its military career. Peter Isotalo 08:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The lead distinguishes somewhat artificially between gunports and the ability to fire a broadside, but in reality both are closely interconnected: A broadside was fired through gunports (cannon on the decks was mainly anti-personnel).
 * Have you read what Rodger has to say about this? Broadsides were fired through gunports, but broadsides weren't actually invented until well after the Mary Rose sank. Peter Isotalo 08:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * So why does the article claim that the Mary Rose fired broadsides, if they were not invented yet? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I clarified that in the lead. The technical ability existed, but as far as I've understood it there are no indications that the tactical application existed at that time. Peter Isotalo 08:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * IMO the section on "display" and "archaeology" should switch places so that archaeology can immediately follow on "modern rediscovery" and salvage.
 * Good point; switched places. Peter Isotalo 08:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Format:
 * "Illustration from a treatise on salvaging from 1734": there is a near-contemporary one to the Mary Rose at Drydock. I can vouch for its authenticity, I myself uploaded the pic and wrote the comment next to it years ago.
 * Use the Harvard citation system for easy navigation between footnotes and bibliography, see e.g. List of Roman domes
 * Please split longer paragraphs to make the whole text more readable. As a rule, a paragraph should not run longer than 6-8 lines.
 * Generally, the article needs more inline-citations. Cf. FA Byzantine navy which is pretty scrupulous about that. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that using the "Harvard citation system" Gun Powder Ma mentions is not a requirement for featured articles. Ucucha 16:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Also I'm not sure if there's a rule about 6-8 line paragraphs, which is fairly unfeasible in a lot of instances (happy to be proved wrong though). Ranger Steve (talk) 18:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I split a few paragraphs. It's difficult to interpret "6-8 lines", though, since it is entirely dependent on resolution of individual screen. The illustration is very nice, but doesn't seem to be relevant to this article. It looks to me like the ship in that picture is being serviced rather than salvaged. For comment about adding more footnotes, see my reply to Steve Ranger above. Peter Isotalo 08:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Noticed I forgot to comment the request for Harvard templates. I'm personally not a big fan of templates since they add a lot of dinkiness that's unfriendly to newbies and those who aren't code-savvy. And I believe they tend to make citation less flexible without really saving anyone much time.
 * Peter Isotalo 23:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment. I only would like to point to a little problem in "Contemporary accounts": "Lord High Admiral John Russell" cannot be the correct one, as John Russell, 1st Earl of Bedford served from 1540–1542 (see e.g. List of Lords High Admirals and First Lords of the Admiralty). John Dudley, Viscount Lisle was in office and on place when the Mary Rose sank, and wrote letters to William Paget (together with Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk and William Paulet) from the scene. So, it is most unlikely that John Russell wrote the letter. Otherwise, Russell was not Lord Admiral at that time or any time later. For the above: David Loades: John Dudley, Duke of Northumberland 1504–1553, Clarendon Press, 1996, ISBN 0198201931, pp. 70–71. Buchraeumer (talk) 12:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Good thing you caught it. It's my mistake, though, not Marsden's. He actually cites Loades, though from a different, more recent work, Letters from the Mary Rose (2002), written together with Knigthon. I obviously forgot to check the exact date when John Russel was Lord High Admiral and merely inserted the title in order to explain a bit about his role. I've solved the problem for now by adding a "former".
 * Peter Isotalo 13:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine then, problem resolved! Buchraeumer (talk) 19:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Support This is an outstanding article which makes great use of the available sources and photos. My only comments are that the 'See also' section should be integrated into the article, and the external links could be trimmed. Nick-D (talk) 05:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I removed some links, so it's down to seven. If it's not too much of a burden, though, I'd really like to keep "See also"-links. Very few readers will go through the article thoroughly enough to catch all those links, and working both Batavia in Kronan would be piling on even more info on an already gigantic article. Peter Isotalo 14:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Vasa is linked in the article's prose so doesn't need to be in the see also section and, to be frank, I don't see the relevance of the other two ships other that they're from the same era and artifacts have been recovered from them Nick-D (talk) 06:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The Vasa Museum and the Mary Rose Trust are sister organizations with a long history of cooperation. These ships are also the only two comparable projects of their kind. What other (pre-modern) wrecks have attracted as much interest from scholars and the general public?
 * I've read many suggestions that links in the articles shouldn't be repeated in the "See also"-section, but I've never quite seen the point (except for huge link farms). A minimum of repetition is never bad, especially since just about no one ever reads through entire articles of this size. As for Batavia and Kronan, they're both pretty well-known shipwrecks which have been excavated by archaeologists, which makes them highly relevant. We could exchange them for La Belle (ship) or other articles that are better developed (or more varied). I could add short explanatory notes for the ships if the reason for their inclusion isn't clear enough. Peter Isotalo 16:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Quick Comment Why have a redlink to "serpentines", but not to any of the other types of guns in the same sentence? I'm not saying that the redlinks are bad, but you should at least be consistent in their use... Bluap (talk) 10:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I linked it because I thought it unlikely that the others would have their own articles. When I think about it, not even serpentine would really be worth a separate article due to the difficulty in establishing its definition with any great accuracy. So for consistency's sake, I've delinked that too.
 * And thanks for the copyedit. It improved the flow of the text quite a bit. Peter Isotalo 14:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. (I made one small format tweak to one website ref) Ealdgyth - Talk 17:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the check-up! Peter Isotalo 11:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Note The OTRS permission for a few more donated images from the Mary Rose Trust just went through and have been added to the article. Peter Isotalo 14:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments 1) The phrase "four decades of intermittent war" (in the final paragraph of the lede) should probably be a link somewhere. 2) The sentence "All three had gone to war 1508 with the formation of the League of Cambrai, first against the Republic of Venice but the conflict eventually turned against France." doesn't make sense to me, and should be rewritten. Bluap (talk) 11:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) All conflicts are part of the Italian Wars but don't make up a clear delineated group among these (that I know of). They have Mary Rose and Henry VIII in common, though.
 * 2) Yeah, somewhat confused; now rewritten.
 * Peter Isotalo 16:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Comments  - The issues below are not significant enough to stop promotion, but are worth looking at. A mammoth article in as much depth as I like :) I'll begin a readthrough now and jot any notes below. Feel free to revert any prose changes I make which inadvertently change meaning. Visiting the Mary Rose was one of the most interesting tourism things I did in the UK. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The marriage alliance between Anne of Brittany and Charles VIII of France in 1491, and his successor Louis XII in 1499, confronted England with a worsened strategic position on its southern flank. - "confronted" is an odd choice of verb - just "left England with a....?''


 * I'm wondering whether it'd be better to italicise the four main decks of the ship in para 2 of the  Design section (names as names principle in WP:MOS on italics (?)) - not a deal-breaker, just a thought.


 * ' 'Today only about 40% of the original structure of the ship remains'' - sounds odd. WAsn't it all brought up? Does this mean that 40% was all that was remaining when it was salvaged?

All good :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Didn't even have time to say I'd fixed it... Your copyedit tweaks all looked good to me. Thanks for the suggestion and the support! And now that you mention it, it would be a bit odd if I didn't to Portsmouth myself eventually, considering how much work I've spent on the topic... Peter Isotalo 13:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * As I said, it's really cool..made a change from cathedrals and castles.... :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Support. This is outstanding, well researched, and nicely done. A few minor prose issues that should be dealt with.
 * In the analysis of the crew, and elsewhere, you've mixed verb tenses. 179 individuals were found ...There are no written records (no extant written records)... Among the men who died on the ship there are likely to have been some who had practised...

the fleet returned to Southampton in June where they (it? is fleet plural or singular....? you use "it" in the next sentence) were visited by King Henry.

The Breton flagship Cordelière put up a fight and was boarded by the 1,000-ton Regent. by the crew of the Regent? You've spelt ton as tonne earlier. 180 (should be written out, see MOS) English crew members saved themselves by throwing themselves into the sea and only a handful of Bretons survived to be captured.

Howard himself managed to reach the ship of French admiral Prégent de Bidoux and lead a small party ...

It left him at the mercy of the soldiers aboard the galley who instantly killed him. Needs comma before who. This is a problem throughout.

A document written by Thomas Cromwell written in 1536 

What this repair consisted of, though, is not known, nor how large it was The nature or extent of this repair is unknown.

Many authors, including the project leader for the raising of the Mary Rose Margaret Rule, have assumed that it meant a complete rebuilding from clinker planking to carvel planking... Many experts, including Margaret Rule, the project leader for the raising of the Mary Rose, have assumed that it meant...

England's position had become increasingly isolated due to Henry's complicated marriage affairs and his high-handed dissolution of the monasteries angered the Pope and Catholic rulers all over Europe. henry's complicated marital situation and his high-handed dissolution of the monasteries angered the Pope and Catholic rulers throughout Europe, which increased England's diplomatic isolation. ?

The estimates of the size of the fleet vary considerably.. varied.

For those that were not injured or killed outright by moving objects, there was little time to reach safety, especially for those who were manning the guns on the main deck or fetching ammunition and supplies in the hold. Awkward

''Several accounts of the sinking have been preserved that describe the incident. The only contemporary account is the testimony of a surviving Flemish crewman written down..'' These seems to contradict... Several accounts... Of these, only the contemporary testimony of a surviving Flemish crewman ....

And so on. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the support! I've gone through the examples here and corrected all of them with the exception of the boarding. Saying that "USS Foo was boarded by HMS Bar" is standard phrasing when writing about naval history. And even to those who haven't encountered it before, it will be pretty obvious that the crew is doing the boarding.
 * I'll keep on the lookout for other prose errors over the next few days.
 * Peter Isotalo 17:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.