Talk:HMS Monarch (1868)

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

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

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

triple expansion engines

The article implies that fitting new engines was a waste of time because the result was only one knot faster than when originally built. I understand the other advantage of triple expansion engines is that they were more efficient than previous designs, meaning they used less coal and thus increased endurance. Don't know the details of the original engine type, doesn't say. I also find her final refit of seven years puzzlingly long. Maybe 6 years laid up while people decided what to do with an old ship and 1 doing the work? Sandpiper (talk) 07:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Anthony.bradbury apparently never checked what WP:NPOV was. Most his early writings are hopelessly biased. Parkes when discussing the modernisation on pages 134-135 of British Battleships gives no reason for the length of the process, merely stating "… work was brought to a belated conclusion in 1897—the longest period for refitting ever recorded." --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 08:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's also interesting to note that according to a contemporary trade journal, Monarch "easily attained" 17¼ knots on trial in April, 1897. --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 08:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Painting

This image is identified as being of Monarch, but it doesn't look like Monarch. Does anyone know its true identity? Who is the artist? Drutt (talk) 03:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]