Talk:Cyclops-class monitor/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Magic♪piano 20:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Looks like another decently-written ship-class article.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

What I'm missing in re 3a is background. In addition to the need to explain the "war scare" (a tag I did not place, but mention of possible war with Russia and use of ships like these in the Baltic would be relevant at that point), there appears to be a more elaborate answer to the question of why this design was chosen in preference to other designs then under consideration. I find here, for example, debate in UK political and military circles on the subject that would illuminate the design choices in a less technical way. I am also lacking context into the history of ironclads at this point; these seem to be fairly early ironclads the UK produced, but where they fit in the UK's timeline of ironclad construction is not mentioned here (or in the predecessor Cerberus class monitor...). I also note that the word "ironclad" appears nowhere in the article; "iron" is used to describe its armour only in the section on that subject. Not everyone will know that "monitor" implies "ironclad"; I shouldn't have to click through to another article to find that out.

There's zero discussion about any possible offensive use of these ships in any of the books I consulted, even the ones that talk about offensive uses of the earlier ships like Glatton, Hotspur, etc. Nor is there any mention of any alternative designs under consideration. I suspect that the need to do something "right now" during the war scare led to an enlarged Cerberus class design. But I've added a bit from Beeler. I'm not sure how to place these ships within their context of ironclad designs as you mention. The era of broadside ironclads had already ended and the debate was now between central battery ironclads and turret ironclads of one type or another in the RN, and even that was decisively won by the turret ships by 1875 or so. Added a link to ironclad in the lead.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I was trying to get at that Beeler points out is that there was a discussion about whether ships with this class's characteristics should be built rather than other types of ships. Quote from p. 101: "it would be far better to spend in protecting our coasts than in increasing the number of our cruising vessels". This implies a trade-off (political/military/financial) is being made to build ships of this class (having one purpose) rather than ships of that class (having another). This is not a technical naval design question; it is a high-level "what do I need to protect/attack; how do I best protect/attack it given current technology" question.

I've added a bit more on the political context.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as placing the design in some sort of historical context, why can't you put words similar to your second-to-last sentence in the article? The evolution of ship designs is completely unknown to me, and probably also to the average 12-year-old (my favorite target reader) that stumbles on this. Given that this class seems to be a one-off from the Cerberus design (and also a bit of an evolutionary dead end, considering they were never really used for the intended purpose), maybe more historical context should go in the Cerberus class article?

Yes, the Cerberus class article will get a full dose of how they fit into the history of battleship evolution as they're direct ancestors of the Iowas and Yamatos

When coastal defence ships were next ordered, what class were they (and how did they differ from these)? Is there a WP article with ship-class or technology-based evolution/timeline/history (History of Royal Navy ship design, say)? Magic♪piano 00:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, but there should be. The article breastwork monitor should go into a fair amount of detail on the evolution of these ships, but I haven't gotten around to expanding it yet. To summarize there was a split in tasks after Cerberus and Abyssinia. The next three ships, Glatton, Hotspur, and Rupert, were all coastal-attack/rams with a turret only at one end while the Cyclops reverted back to the original concept. Their follow-on, the Conqueror-class, were derived from Rupert with the rear superstructure built up even more.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination is on hold; this should not be too much work to address. Magic♪piano 21:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ping--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think your changes adequately address my concerns; passing. Magic♪piano 12:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]