Talk:Lord Clyde-class ironclad

WPMILHIST

An infobox would be wonderful. LordAmeth 10:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Lord Clyde-class ironclad/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 20:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: GGOTCC (talk · contribs) 03:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Before I go through the GA requirements, various CE issues need to be addressed. I made my own edits, but other clerity issues would be best addressed by the nominator so that I do not unintentionally change the information.

“Lord Clyde was rolling her gun ports under, while Bellerophon could have fought her main armament in safety. “ Can this be described? Was Lord Clyde so unstable that her gun ports were submerged with water, preventing them from being used?

The sources do not explain any more.

“ They were, however, very handy and sailed well in all weathers under sail or steam.” Would this line be better placed under the “propulsion” section?

It could be. If so, the comparison with the preceding sentence would need to be removed.

“equipped with the largest and most powerful engines placed in a wooden hull and the worst rollers in the force.” The tenses are off. Do you mean, “being fitted with the largest and most powerful engines in a wooden-hull ship, and had the worst stability?” Also, it should be stated that these records do not stand today

The sources do not state that the records do not stand.

“7 in (180 mm) rifled muzzle-loading (RML) guns” It is best to not introduce acronyms until the article body.

I cannot see this in MOS:LEAD, and MOS:ABBR states that "an acronym should be written out in full for the first time, followed by the abbreviation in parentheses".

Do you mean “fully rigged” and not “ship-rigged?”

The sources state “fully rigged”.

The numbers regularly change from their numerical value to being spelled out while measuring the guns, ie “with 24 7 in” v “fourteen 8 in (203 mm)”. One pattern should be adopted.

According to MOS:NUMERAL, "integers greater than nine expressible in one or two words may be expressed either in numerals or in words", but I cannot see your statement there. Mindful that it says "ideally" in the guideline that "adjacent quantities not comparable should ideally be in different formats", I nonetheless have adjusted the former.

“green timber had been used in her construction.” Can this be explained? Why is it bad for the engines? What does it have to do with the torque?

The sources do not say.

Various issues with Subject-Verb agreement and changes in tensing

I assume that you are relating to MOS:TENSE. Can you tell me which ones?

Is ‘rectangular boilers’ a proper term or a physical description?

That is the term used in the sources.

Ambiguity with pronouns - ‘it’ and ‘this’ are not very clear

The two examples of 'this' are, firstly, to describe their characteristic rolling and, secondly, to use green timber rather than seasoned wood.

The word choice is unnecessarily complex in some places,

Please explain. Are the saying that there are words to watch?

Not everything in the lead is supported by the body

Can you point out what is not?

Various inconsistencies with article usage

Can you tell which are?

Define, or reword, terms such as ‘iron cased’, especially regarding why wood is involved

This is the term used in the sources.

It would be beneficial to mention why the center of gravity was so low. You don’t even have to relate to the class in general, but the chronic issue with Victorian-era ships

Suggest this risks going off-topic.

Some of the longest sentences should be broken up

I cannot see any MOS on sentence length.

What exactly does, “On commissioning” mean?

There is a link to ship commissioning in the table immediately above.

The paragraphs generally lack cohesion and contain details that are easy to misinterpret. Here is a paragraph that I think would have better cohesion, “"The construction of Lord Clyde faced challenges due to a shortage of seasoned timber at Pembroke Dockyard, leading to the use of green timber. This, combined with the stress caused by her trunk engines, resulted in rapid wear on her engines. Upon reaching Naples, a fleet engineer deemed the engines unsafe, and the ship had to be sailed to Malta Dockyard for temporary repairs.” Do you see the difference?

I think this is consistent with the sources so have changed it.

What was the goal of the Particular Service Squadron? The other fleets have names that explain themselves, ie. the Mediterranean Fleet, but this one does not.

The link to Particular Service Squadron redirects to Flying Squadron (United Kingdom), so there is definitely space for an article on the squadron. However, following WP:TOPIC, I suggest that too much detail on the fleet would be off-topic.

Why is “Rated with the ability” kept as a hypothetical? GGOTCC (talk) 01:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I have simplified the phrase.

I'll work on this review this week.

@GGOTCC: I am aware that this is the second review that you have undertaken for an article of mine and, to avoid some of the confusion that existed in that process, I suggest that you will want to focus your comments on those that are required to meet the GA criteria as described in the Good Article review instructions and treat other areas as optional. There is some good guidance in reviewing good articles on how to do this. There is some clarity there, particularly on what is expected from a review and what is not. If you would like to know more about the latter, please do read What the Good article criteria are not. I know that, although it is designed to be lightweight, the reviewing process can be difficult to navigate. As I said then, as a new reviewer, you may want to look at applying for a mentor as this can be a very helpful way to receive support in the early days. simongraham (talk) 18:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello Simongrapahm,

Where did I not address requirment 1a of a GA review, which states, "The prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct"? Here, I pointed out areas that suffered from gramatical issues, a lack of clarity, or both.

If you object to me continuing, then I will be willing to recend my review and allow another user to take over.

Best,

GGOTCC (talk) 20:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

@GGOTCC: I have gone through all your comments line by line, which I hope is helpful. Amongst the various GA nominations and reviews I have been involved in, some have been more learning experiences than others. I feel that working with you could be one from these for both of us. If you would like a second opinion, I am happy with that as an alternative too. simongraham (talk) 11:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

@Simongraham

That is good to hear, and I look foward to working with you as well. This article has potential, and I also want to see it become the best it can be.

I have made some edits to the article, which mainly address my concerns regarding clerity. Would you please review my changes to see if I unintentionally changed the meaning of the text, and to see if you agree with my changes? GGOTCC (talk) 20:47, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

@GGOTCC: Thank you. That looks excellent. I have made a couple of minor changes and, given that rectangular boilers are included in the description of the contemporary HMS Warrior but without clarification or wikilink, I have removed the clarification tag, but otherwise I agree that your amendments improve the article. simongraham (talk) 06:18, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Sounds good! Would you mind if I also check the sources and re-write any other things for clerity before I start the review in erarnest? I'll do it this weekend. GGOTCC (talk) 11:53, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

@Simongraham

Note: I just now realized that the 'rectangular boiler' refers to a fire-tube boiler, and specifically in this context, a Scotch marine boiler. I'll see if I can just directly add the Wikilink if a source does not explicitly spell it out GGOTCC (talk) 20:21, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

A rectangular boiler is emphatically not a Scotch boiler! Andy Dingley (talk) 22:49, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Oh.

Alright, I'll change the article back.

Thank you!

GGOTCC (talk) 23:00, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Just wondering, where has this gotten to exactly? Setergh (talk) 09:13, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

The article had several obvious CE issues that would have immediatly halted a GA review, so I addressed those first so that a full review would go smoother. The nominator included various rare terms found in the sources that were unexplained in the article (ie. rectangular boiler, ship-rigged, 'rollers', green and seasoned wood) that I wanted to either wikilink or reword to be more clear, per 1A of the GA requirment. GGOTCC (talk) 11:53, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

@GGOTCC: I feel that it would be good to do what we can quick to move this nomination to GA promotion. I have added links to digital copies of two of the key sources to help you to verify them. The guidance is to spot check sources, which, in my experience, does not take long. simongraham (talk) 02:57, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

@Simongraham:Sure thing, I'll work on that now. I did another random spot check with Ref 12, and I can't find any infomation on her funnel mentioned. Can you confirm? I am also not confident as it appears the wrong source was cited for the previous failed spot check, which leads me to question the others. GGOTCC (talk) 04:06, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

@GGOTCC: The statement on the funnel is unsourced so I have removed it. Ref 12 concerns the following sentence. simongraham (talk) 08:43, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Alright. The last issue before promotion would be the uncited info about the Royal Oak in the infobox + other CE issues that have not been fixed GGOTCC (talk) 21:19, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

@GGOTCC: Royal Oak is gone. simongraham (talk) 03:57, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Alright, that's good enough for me. Congradulations on yet another GA article to add to your illustrious roll, @Simongraham! GGOTCC (talk) 23:26, 11 February 2025 (UTC)