Talk:Defence-class ironclad

Defence-class ironclad 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 29, 2013. (Reviewed version).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Defence-class ironclad 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

A fact from Defence-class ironclad appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 7 September 2013 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the British Defence-class ironclad (pictured) was considered by the naval architect Sir Nathaniel Barnaby to have only one quarter the combat value of the preceding Warrior class?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2013/September. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Defence-class ironclad.

Wikipedia

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

Poplar

I'm puzzled why Westwood, Baillie has been altered from Cubitt Town to the less specific Poplar. The company was based at London Yard, which is definitely in Cubitt Town. Pterre (talk) 12:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because Ballard says Poplar. I wonder if this is a case where the corporate HQ is in one neighborhood and the actual yard is in another.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:47, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, to the best of my knowledge (see for example here) London Yard was the HQ and the yard - this was not a huge multi-site company. Cubitt Town was then in the Metropolitan Borough of Poplar (now part of Tower Hamlets), but Cubitt Town is a more precise location. Pterre (talk) 17:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but is London Yard preferable to both? That is the actual site where the ship was built and the company HQ'd. Or do you think that is too specific?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I prefer Cubitt Town, but either this or London yard would be fine. Pterre (talk) 22:49, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 10:59, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will review later today. Miyagawa (talk) 10:59, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, now for the review:

Background: I understand what you mean by "French ironclads then building" but would something like "then under construction" be easier for the reader?
Also - any information on just how much cheaper they were than the Warriors? I'd be interested if it was aligned with the consideration of combat output - after all if they were only worth 1/4 of a Warrior in terms out output, but cost 1/4 of a Warrior then it actually make sense.

That is all I can spot - so once those couple of points are sorted I think this is a straight forward pass. Miyagawa (talk) 16:56, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revised the background para with the price of the Warriors added as well as your other suggested change.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I'm happy that this meets the GA requirements. Miyagawa (talk) 18:33, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]