Wikipedia:Peer review/Mary Rose/archive1

Mary Rose

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've been writing on this article since last summer and I'm looking to make this an FA soon. I haven't nominated anything since Vasa (ship), but I feel this should be my next one. I'm intensely close to the text so I'm not really aware of any glaring problems right now. I'd like to perhaps shorten the article somewhat, but it's difficult to know where to make the cuts. I hope I can get some useful suggestions for that and other things here, though.

Thanks in advance,

Peter ^Isotalo 20:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Nick-D

This is an excellent article, and is very comprehensive and elegantly written. I particularly like the photos of the ship's remnants as they currently appear - my attempts to take photos of her when I visited in 2006 were frustrated by the windows of the viewing gallery being covered in the waxy liquid being used to preserve the hull! My suggestions for further improvements are:

Those are some very nice comments and they're greatly appreciated. And it's nice to hear that the pics are helpful. I've been fortunate both in finding works that others have found and in getting a generous donation from the Mary Rose Trust. And I shouldn't forget to mention that I've gotten a lot of help with copyedting from a whole bunch of helpful and experienced editors. Peter ^Isotalo 18:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• There's a bit of repetition in some sections of the prose (eg, 'Constructing a warship of the size of the Mary Rose was a major construction project' - the second 'construction' could be omitted here)

   Done

• It should be noted that building the ship required skilled workers as well as high quality material. NAM Roger might have some material on the British shipbuilding industry of the period you can draw on if needed.
• "The average number of men on an armed mission" reads like the crew were on detached duty away from the ship; something like 'her wartime manning' might be more appropriate.

   Done

• "The English had around 80 ships with which to oppose the French, including the flagship Mary Rose, but were at a considerable disadvantage in the number of heavy galleys, the vessels who were at their best in sheltered waters like the Solent, and promptly retreated into Portsmouth harbour." is a bit awkward and unclear and might work better as two sentences.

   Done

• What 'scour pits' are might need to be explained

  Is "large underwater ditches" enough, you think? Peter ^Isotalo 18:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• The statement that "Henry Abbinett became the first person to actually see the Mary Rose in almost 300 years" in 1836 contradicts the earlier statement that she could be viewed from the surface at low tide up to about 1643.

   Done

• The 'Causes of sinking' section seems out of place - it would work better before the 'History as a shipwreck' section.

   Done

• The short para that begins with 'Finally, there was a vast collection of disparate' needs a citation
• The article should cover the display of Mary Rose and artifacts from her at Portsmouth. When I was there in 2006 the long-term plan was to have the hull set up so that visitors could walk next to it on a walkway while a replica of the ship as she originally looked was on the other side of the walkway - is this still the case? Her display next to HMS Victory also warrants mention.

  I almost hoped no one would notice that one. :-) You're right about the plans, though. There are articles on the Mary Rose Museum and Mary Rose Trust with some info on that, but I agree that there needs to be a bit more in this article as well. I'll need to revisit some refs no longer in my possession for that, though. Peter ^Isotalo 18:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Nick-D (talk) 05:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)