# Talk:HMS Enterprise (1864)

"this still left a 120° arc fore and aft on which no gun could bear".  An arc (in this context) should be unbroken; I'm not sure whether you mean to say that no targeting was possible over an arc 60° fore and another arc 60° aft (or two numbers that add up to 120), or whether it's 120° fore and 120° aft ... if the latter, perhaps it would be better to say what was covered. - Dank (push to talk) 20:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I changed it to "120° arc fore and another aft" which should clarify things.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Just a general query about the history of this ship, I notice on the HMS Enterprise page that it mentions that in 1861 a wooden screw sloop was laid down, and then in 1862, that Enterprise and the planned Circassian seemed to switch names. Was it as simple as that, and a direct and deliberate switch? Miyagawa (talk) 18:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps. None of my sources refer to any switch of names at all; they just talk about Circassian being renamed Enterprise.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:HMS Enterprise (1864)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: - Dank (push to talk) 18:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

There's a question on the talk page for you, Sturm. - Dank (push to talk) 18:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): ; I've done some copyediting and everything looks good.  I got reverted on "paid off" and I think we understand each other.  In the notes, "the ship cost 4,596,080 in current pounds" looks a little odd to me without the symbol for pounds, but I'm not grading off for that.
That stood out for me as well. Also, 'current pounds' won't be current in a few month's time. Perhaps a better way to put it would be more along the lines: 'Adjusted for inflation, the ship cost £4,596,080 (October 2010).' Martocticvs (talk) 19:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually, through the magic of the template Sturm used, the figure will be accurate next year ... but the reader won't know that the figure stays current unless we tell them, so I've added another template that will keep the year current as well.  See what you think. - Dank (push to talk) 02:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): ; Sturm's work is generally very careful.  I fixed a rounding error from the source that's online, and I've asked at WT:SHIPS for a quick check of the information from Conway's (I don't have that edition here).

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): ; the breadth of coverage is typical for these ships.  More would be needed for GAN only if other editors turn up substantial new information, I think.

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

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 image is appropriate with a correct rationale.

Overall:
Pass/Fail: Just waiting on some help on Conway's. - Dank (push to talk) 19:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC) .  There wasn't a lot from Conway's, but it all checked out. - Dank (push to talk) 02:43, 30 October 2010 (UTC)