Talk:HMS Lord Warden

HMS Lord Warden has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: September 7, 2013. (Reviewed version).

Ships

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

Military history: Maritime / British / European

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:HMS Lord Warden (1865)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 23:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be reviewing this one - although I expect there won't be a great deal of points as your warship articles are always top notch. Miyagawa (talk) 23:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead: I'd suggest that you might want to add the bit about the slowest sailing ironclad - it'd make a nice addition to the line about fastest steaming.

Design and description: Might be worthwhile linking long tons.
- Is it worthwhile linking Prince Consort to something to clarify who or what it refers to? Was it a reference to a particular vessel or a particular Prince consort?
  - I realise now it was probably the Prince Consort-class ironclad. But could you clarify?
- "was rolling her gun ports under" - only being familiar with more modern military ships (apart from works of fiction), is this a reference to the ship rolling so bad that it took on water through the gun ports? If its anything else then you might want to specify (I think it probably is, but I wanted to double check).

So just those points I think before this one can be graded as a GA. Miyagawa (talk) 23:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good ideas. Thanks for reviewing it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:10, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I've just seen the amendments and I'm happy to grade this article as a GA. Miyagawa (talk) 19:22, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox image is probably a misidentified image of HMS Caledonia (1862).

Comparing the ship in the infobox photo to the plans and photos in Oscar Parkes' reference work British Battleships, this ship is clearly not Lord Warden or her sister ship Lord Clyde. This ship has a straight bow, while both Lord Warden and Lord Clyde had distinctly curved ram bows. Also, if you look carefully you can see the stubs of this ship's retracted funnels, one in front of and one behind the main (central) mast. The Lord Warden and Lord Clyde had both their funnels in front of the main mast. According to Parkes' book, the straight bow and the funnel locations of this ship both match those of the Prince Consort class.

In fact, looking at the web page from which this image was taken, it looks like two pictures simply got swapped. That page also has an image, labeled as HMS Caledonia (a Prince Consort-class ship), which shows a ship that looks like the Lord Warden, just as this image, labeled HMS Lord Warden, looks like a Prince Consort and is probably Caledonia. Since that other image is currently our Commons image for the Caledonia, it should be swapped with this one.

(See also my discussion entry for HMS Caledonia's infobox image.)

--Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 13:40, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking into this a bit further, the original source of the swapped identification seems to be the publication from which the photos were taken, page 81 of the June 25, 1897 issue of The Navy & Army Illustrated. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 03:08, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Image renamed, text corrected, linking pages corrected. Rcbutcher (talk) 23:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]