Talk:HMS Prince Consort/GA1: Difference between revisions

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

Nominator: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 18:46, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Viriditas (talk · contribs) 01:19, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• HMS Prince Consort was the lead ship of her class of wooden-hulled, broadside ironclads built for the Royal Navy (RN) during the 1860s
  • I’m wondering what this note means: “Some sources refer to the ships as the Caledonia or Ocean class.” HMS Ocean was another ship like HMS Caledonia, yes? I guess I’m confused by the note. Are you trying to say that some sources confused the three ships? It isn’t clear what the note means
    • Ok, I think I get it now. You’re trying to say that the Prince Consort class is sometimes referred to as the Caledonia or Ocean class. I wonder if there is a way for you to clear that up. I read it several times and didn’t get it until now.
      • To clarify, did you know what a ship class was before reviewing the article? If it’s an unfamiliar term, then your comment makes sense to me. I’m thinking that if I substitute “Prince Consort class” for “ships”; will that clarify things for you?–Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:32, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        • I had a general idea but I didn’t connect the class with “the ships”. Changing it from “Some sources refer to the ships as the Caledonia or Ocean class” to “Some sources refer to the Prince Consort class as the Caledonia or Ocean class” adds the necessary self-reference and makes it clear.
          • Question: why do Parkes and Winfield refer to it as the Caledonia (class) instead of as Prince Consort?
• I want to compliment you on the writing style you used to compose your lead. It’s easy to read and attempts to summarize the body, and uses the bare minimum number of words to do so.
  • Thank you, that’s nice to hear. I think that the lede is the hardest part of an article to write, especially as I have a tendency to cram a lot of information into a single sentence.–Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:32, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • High information density, but readable. That’s what I enjoy.

• Prince Consort was the first ship of her name, and thus far as of 2025, the only vessel with that name to serve in the RN.
  • See also: WP:ASOF. The source you are citing is from 2020; it should probably be changed to “as of 2020” to be accurate and maintain the integrity of the text and citation.
    • Done–Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:54, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • You addressed the first part, but not the second part. If you’re not going to use “as of 2020”, then what’s the plan, just to leave it as 2025 or update it every year? The advantage to backdating it to the source you use is that it remains tied to that authority.
• The second batch of Bulwark-class ships, including Prince Consort, were ordered in 1859 during an arms race between France and Britain in steam-powered ships of the line.
  • Can you link in some way to the Gloire and the HMS Warrior here for those not familiar with the history?
    • The ironclad arms race is the most famous one of the Victorian period, but there was one in wooden steam-powered ships of the line during the 1850s that has received little attention which leads right into the ironclad arms race. And there’s no article to link to, sadly.–Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:48, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • Understood. I was hoping a more specific naval arms race unique to that time period could be linked instead of the general term. If not, that’s fine.
• She was ordered under the name of Triumph from HM Dockyard, Pembroke on 8 April 1857, laid down on 13 August 1859 and was renamed on 14 February 1862.
  • Commas needed? She was ordered under the name of Triumph from HM Dockyard, Pembroke, on 8 April 1857, laid down on 13 August 1859, and was renamed on 14 February 1862.
• This is more of a philosophical question: how does a separate section on the “Bulwark-class ship of the line” and “Background and description” differ? I’m guessing this is more of a milhist style and convention? For me, the general reader, these are both background sections, with the former a background on the class of ships and the latter a historical background. In some respects, it reads like two background sections. If this is the way you guys do it, that’s fine, but if I used this style in a literature, arts, or bio, reviewers would call for my head. Ideally, having these both as subsections under “background” would make more sense.
  • I was trying to do things chronologically, which meant one section with all the Bulwark info and another with the ironclad info. I’ve retitled the background and description as ironclad conversion and description, which should eliminate any confusion.–Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:48, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Around 1865, one of her topsails was removed; yards were added to the ship’s mizzenmast by 1866 and Prince Consort had a full ship rig which she retained for the rest of her career.
  • I get what you are trying to say, but this could be improved for readability. One way to improve this dramatically is to begin the sentence with Prince Consort to establish the framing right away. Where you go from there is up to you, but you could approach this in many different ways. Example: The configuration of Prince Consort was changed in the 1860s: she had one of her topsails removed around 1865; yards were added to her mizzenmast by 1866; and for the rest of her career she carried a full ship rig.

Armament and armour

• The four remaining guns were positioned on the main deck and these were supplemented by eight 100-pounder and sixteen 68-pounder smoothbore muzzle-loading guns, all on the broadside.
  • A comma is recommended after main deck.

• Prince Consort was launched on 26 June 1862 and was commissioned for trials under Captain Charles Vesey on 27 October 1863.
  • A comma is recommended after 1862, but it might be optional in this instance due to length. Also, to avoid redundancy, you can remove the second use of “was”: Prince Consort was launched on 26 June 1862, and commissioned for trials under Captain Charles Vesey on 27 October 1863.
• Her mission was a show of force to prevent two turret ironclads under construction there from being turned over to their Confederate Navy owners by their builder, Laird Brothers.
  • Stylistically, I found “under construction there” somewhat clunky and it slowed me down as a reader. Offsetting it as a parenthetical, while not ideal, might work better here. There are at least four different ways you can do this, so maybe play around with it a bit.
• Just a note: you linked to multiple terms in the lead that aren’t linked in this section. Is that your own style? Isn’t it recommended to link in both places? Gale, Irish Sea, roll, scuppers…
  • Not to my knowledge. I generally only link to terms multiple times if there’s a lot of text between the usages, and I mean a lot. Otherwise I think that it’s kind of insulting to the reader assuming that they can’t remember a term that they read merely a thousand or more words ago.–Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:06, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Captain Edward Inglefield assumed command on 10 April 1866 and Prince Consort was transferred to the Mediterranean the following year after replacing her armament.
  • A comma is recommended: Captain Edward Inglefield assumed command on 10 April 1866, and Prince Consort was transferred to the Mediterranean the following year after replacing her armament.
• Inglefield was replaced by Captain William Armytage on 3 March 1868 and rejoined the Channel Squadron in 1869.
  • Due to its short length, I’m not convinced a comma is really needed here, but it could be rewritten in several different ways. Others will recommend adding the comma before “and”.
• She was paid off in 1871 at HM Dockyard, Devonport, rearmed, and was placed in reserve.
  • I’m not convinced you need “was” here: She was paid off in 1871 at HM Dockyard, Devonport, rearmed, and placed in reserve.
• Prince Consort’s hull was starting to deteriorate by 1882 and she was sold to Castle’s Shipbreakers in March.
  • Again, short enough to get away with not adding a comma, but others will recommend it before “and”.
• Note, there’s a great painting that illustrates the rolling in the Irish Sea on p. 115 of Ballard 1980.
  • I’ve added a different painting to the article. I can’t find the other one.

• This has been addressed in other sections of the review.

• 1a: verified
• 2a: verified; Full access to British Battleships, Warrior 1860 to Vanguard 1950 is available on IA. iIt often helps readers to link to it.
• 4: verified; full access to Battleships in Transition is available on IA. Link to it in your ref.
• 5: still doesn’t make sense why you say “as of 2025” when the source you are citing was published in 2020.
• 7: not verified. Are you citing the right source here? The info about Prince Consort appears on pp. 80-84, so you are missing one page. Also, on p. 84, there’s a photo of Prince Consort which you aren’t using.
• 8: verified. Full access to The Black Battlefleet is available on IA. Link to it in your ref.
• 9: verified. Full access to British Battleships, Warrior 1860 to Vanguard 1950 is available on IA. Link to it in your ref.

• The image checks out, although the image history is somewhat funky due to an initial erroneous upload. I added an archival link from IA on the Commons information page so that people can see the correct image (it was a dead link last time I checked).

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Minor issues.

   Fixed.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Issues fixed.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   Minor question.

   Answered and fixed.

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   Cited.

   C. It contains no original research:

   No OR.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Earwig returns clean result.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Good.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   Focused.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   NPOV.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   Pass.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Pass.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Pass.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Minor issues.

   Issues addressed.

Added material from Jones. See if all my changes are satisfactory. And thanks for your very thorough review.–Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:53, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your patience. Viriditas (talk) 21:40, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.