Talk:SS Great Britain

message: The caption for the 1844 photograph is wrong. I've found photographs of other ships dating back to 1839. Changing it now.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.202.165 (talk) 06:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not the first photograph of a ship 

message: "Brunel himself advised that if anyone could rescue the ship then the man to do it was the naval engineer Andrew Swan of Brisbane. Bremner was engaged and the Great Britain was refloated in August 1847. 
Sorry to be a pain, but was it Swan or Bremner?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jinxs (talk • contribs) 10:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistency 

message: The current image is just a show of the stern of the ship, surely a much more full shot of the boat would be a better leading image for this article. --Lemming64 17:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Gatoclass (talk) 06:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: The article includes the following statement...
:In the Second World War, some of her steel was scavenged to repair HMS Exeter, one of the Royal Navy ships that fought the Graf Spee and was badly damaged, in the Battle of the River Plate.
If the SS Great Britain was built of wrought iron plates, how was steel scavenged for repairs? I think this should read 'some of her iron was scavenged', but someone with more knowledge than me should change the text if required. --Chris Jefferies (talk) 22:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Steel or iron? 

message: There seems to be a discrepancy between the Introduction, where it is said the 1845 crossing in 14 days was a record, and the Service History section, where it is said that the the crossing was much slower than the existing record and the speed was "unexceptional". 
RichWA (talk) 16:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on the table in Blue Riband and its source page here, I have removed it.  As SS Great Western had already held the record from 1843 of 12 d, 18 h, 0 m this seems contradictory.  Now, as you say, the lead mention of 14 days (with no direct citation from the sources) and without mentioning speed records corresponds to the Service History section. Syrthiss (talk) 17:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speed Records? 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Manby This page also says it was the first iron-hulled steamship to cross the channel, but it was in 1822, predating the SS Great Britain.
184.66.30.121 (talk) 17:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the inconsistency?  Great Britain was the first screw-propelled iron steamship. The Aaron Manby was a paddle steamer. Famously Brunel first thought of Great Britain as wooden (as his Great Western had been) and it was only after studying the Rainbow (and some reductions in the price of wrought iron) that he was converted to iron. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistencies in claims 

message: I have been doing some work on this article, particularly trying to find citations to support the claims made. There are still quite a few areas which I've marked with "citation needed" - can anyone help with references for these areas? Aslo what else do people feel is needed to get this article to meet the Good article criteria?— Rod talk 21:05, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: One thing I meant to add when expanding the article earlier was that (from memory) the paddlewheel engines had almost been completed when the decision was made to switch to screw propulsion. Also, an entire new workshop had to be constructed to build the new engines. These are important points IMO that I think ought to be in the article. Gatoclass (talk) 15:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help with finding citations and other work needed for a GA nomination 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on SS Great Britain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402091725/http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Hit-elite-sporting-stars-trip-great-iron-ship/story-11293374-detail/story.html to http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Hit-elite-sporting-stars-trip-great-iron-ship/story-11293374-detail/story.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090126062117/http://www.thegulbenkianprize.org.uk/press/prwinner2006.htm to http://www.thegulbenkianprize.org.uk/press/prwinner2006.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Why is this described as "two engines"?   There's only one, an inverted V with four cylinders. It operates as one engine, never any part independently. The crankshft is famously the biggest forging of its time, and it's one piece. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Engines? 

message: I have started Draft:Being Brunel, but I'm not sure if it stands alone or should be part of this article. Also it is definitely very stubby - additional input welcome.--Verbarson (talk) 21:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added it to this article. I also see that there is a Brunel Institute, but I can't find any independent sources online.--Verbarson (talk) 14:35, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Being Brunel 

message: 360 passenger capacity is listed. There is no reference for this. I've read two sources, one being reference 107, saying the passenger capacity is 250. Now, I know there was another deck installed, so is 360 with the addition added on deck from the original?
Reference 107 https://web.archive.org/web/20150402151835/http://rpec.co.uk/rpec_new/pages/_Art-21.html
Another reference https://oceanliners.weebly.com/the-invention.html Webbiiess (talk) 16:37, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Wessex Archaeology 252 passengers + 130 crew -- Verbarson  talkedits 17:05, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Passenger Capacity 

message: I feel suspect a displacement of 3400 t and a load volume (sorry, i do not remember the english for the italian stazza) of 3443 bm: the two numbers are too close. 151.29.133.9 (talk) 13:52, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The figures look OK to me, but I've raised this at WT:SHIPS so more editors can comment. Mjroots (talk) 15:52, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  I thought that's easy, I'll check in the guidebooks, says around 3000 tons, so no help at all! Murgatroyd49 (talk) 20:02, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  please check