# Talk:Warrior-class ironclad

This review is transcluded from Talk:Warrior class ironclad/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
1: Well written:
The lead uses the word construction a fair bit in the first paragraph.
Although I understand the meaning of ironclad, the casual reader may not realise that it usually describes warships. I'd perhaps suggest "ocean going warships" but linking it to ironclad (although that may not be accurate either...).
Reworded a bit.
That does it ok. Ranger Steve (talk) 21:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Lead: It does summarise the article, but its a wee bit short and could be a little bit longer. Also it alludes to an invasion scare that isn't expanded on in the main text.
What else do you think is worthy of inclusion? I've added a bit on the invasion scare.
Like I said,  its all there, but just very compressed.  For instance, the re-armament weaponry is described, but not the original. Black Prince's role as a training ship is mentioned, but Warrior's is summarised to being hulked only (despite a slightly longer and more varied period of use. Ranger Steve (talk) 21:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Added a bit about the original armament. BP's role as a training ship is mentioned because it was after she was in reserve for so long.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
2: Factually accurate:
The first sentence of Design and description is uncited before the quote. I fully agree with the text, but perhaps because of the prose it looks a tiny bit original researchy....
That's a paraphrase of Brown's text right before the quote. Should I cite it to that?
Probably best to. I usually see a cite after a quote as the direct cite for that quote, so just to be sure I'd cite it separately - even if it is the same page! Ranger Steve (talk) 21:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Done.
General Characteristics: It says that it was unable to ram, but were there any warships capable of such action at the time? I just don't really imagine it was a consideration of the designers.
Supposedly their bows were "stiffened for ramming", but nothing more. It's rather surprising that ramming became such a big deal before Lissa or even Hampton Roads. But I guess that people were thinking that armored ships would be able to slice right through wooden ones.
Ah, the naivety. Ranger Steve (talk) 21:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Propulsion: Was it only Warrior's prop that could be raised? Was it also the largest raise-able prop screw ever made? According to Winton, it was "the largest hoisting screw ever made (except for that in Black Prince)".
Yes and yes.
Definately? Lambert says "Despite the opinion of Parkes to the contrary, Black Prince had a hoisting screw" (p. 108, bottom left corner). He reiterates this point on p. 190 (main text of bibliography). I can't comment on what Parkes says, but it seems at the least to be undecided. Ranger Steve (talk) 21:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
A closer reading of Ballard mentions her sister's hoisting screw, so I'll fix that.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Propulsion* Any idea why Black Prince was always slower? Not important, but if its known...
No idea.
No prob. Ranger Steve (talk) 21:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Service: Lambert and Winton say that Warrior was named Oil Fuel Hulk C77 in 1942, not 1945.
Good catch.
Sweet. Ranger Steve (talk) 21:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Service: Perhaps a brief explanation of Vernon or a link for that bit.
Good idea, done for both ships.
Good thinking. Ranger Steve (talk) 21:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Service: Alongside implies that Warrior is next to Victory. They're a good 500m apart in different parts of the dockyard.
Fixed.
Sweet. Ranger Steve (talk) 21:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
3: Coverage:
Fine
4: Neutral:
Fine
5: Stable:
Fine
6: Illustrated:
Not a fail-able issue, but its a bit bare for images past the infobox. Could a pic of Black Prince be included to help break up the text? Or some pics of particular detail (ie. the gun deck)?
Agreed, I was in a bit of a hurry. It might be a bit busy now, but maybe not.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Ranger Steve (talk) 21:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Overall: On hold.
Otherwise all good. Concise but detailed. Good read. Ranger Steve (talk) 19:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Dunno if you saw my note on my talk page, but send me an email, I want to discuss plans for other ironclads.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Article looks good. Passing it now. Ranger Steve (talk) 21:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)