Talk:HMS Black Prince (1861)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the HMS Black Prince (1861) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

HMS Black Prince (1861) 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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 7, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed

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

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

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:HMS Black Prince (1861)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ealdgyth - Talk 23:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be reviewing this article shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Just a few spots that could use some explication
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Would be nice to have dates for photographs
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

General comments:
- Could we get dates for the two photographs in their captions?
  - A rough date is available for one, the other is undated.
Propulsion:
- "… and the ship had a maximum speed of 13.6 knots (25.2 km/h; 15.7 mph)." I assume this is while under engine power? Can we make this explicit?
- Same sort of thing for "Black Prince could only do 11 knots (20 km/h; 13 mph), 2 knots (3.7 km/h; 2.3 mph) slower than her sister Warrior.", I assume this is under sail power? Again, can this be explicit?
  - Done and done.
Armour:
- Can we give a quickie explanation of what an "armour belt" is? I know you've linked it but it'd be nice to have an explanation that didn't take the reader away from the page.
  - Harder to do that I thought; see how it reads now.
    - Works for me. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Service:
- You can use {{inflation}} to give a conversion of various prices.
- Do we know how much she sold for as scrap?
  - No price is given.
I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]