Talk:HMS Birkenhead (1845)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the HMS Birkenhead (1845) article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	HMS Birkenhead (1845) has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
February 17, 2008 Good article nominee Listed

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Military history WikiProject     (Rated GA-Class) 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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. Additional information and associated task forces: Associated task forces (general topics): Maritime warfare task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): British military history task force WikiProject Ships (Rated GA-Class) 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 Ship-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome. GA rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale Mid rated as Mid-importance on the assessment scale WikiProject Shipwrecks     (Rated GA-Class) This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Shipwrecks, an attempt to improve coverage of shipwreck-related topics. See also the parent WikiProject, WikiProject Disaster Management. If you plan to work on this article for an extended period of time, please indicate what you are doing on the Project's talk page. NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritising and managing its workload. GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the Project's quality scale. High This article has been rated as high-importance on the Project's importance scale. Shipwreck-related priority open tasks: To Do Shipwrecks Clean up typos Improve grammar Add any additions if needed Discuss desired additions Cattewater Wreck Needs expansion Done Shipwrecks Re-wrote the first paragraph Cleaned up Types of Shipwrecks it felt a bit jumbled Cattewater Wreck Started the article WikiProject Africa / South Africa      (Rated GA-Class) Africa Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Africa, which collaborates on articles related to Africa in Wikipedia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. GA This article has been rated as GA-class on the quality scale. High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject South Africa. See also The South Africa Portal. Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Excuse me but was the Roll of Honour used with permission because it was lifted from one of the links.

Historical records are not coprightable and are implicity in the public domain by dint of being historical records. Or should the names of the victims of this disaster be proprietary to a website which posted them? I don't think so....Skookum1 03:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HMS Birkenhead as Namesake

Please note the dates; if the honours were conferred after the disaster, they could not have been done on a trverse during 1846.

An earlier reference on the web I am unable to find noted a slightly different version: that the Birkenhead had previously picked up survivor of another shipwreck, and the Captain asked for volunteers to surrender their places in the available ifeboats; to a man standing fast; lited as Durban Harbor.

As such the Birkinhead drill was not an act of obedience to orders, it would have been voluntary.

-- Moved from main page Mitchellfx 22:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

A.C. Anderson did not name either Seton Lake or Mount Birkenhead until well after his 1846 journey through this area; it was during the 1860s that Governor Douglas asked him to name them; or the 1850s, as if I recall correctly by 1858 (the onset of the Fraser Canyon Gold Rush) the names for Anderson and Seton Lakes were already in place. His 1846 mission was a route survey only, not a cartographical expedition.Skookum1 22:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The article mentions no male civilian survivors but Charles Daly, a civilian survived the wreck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.240.67.59 (talk) 15:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Court Martials

I've seen references to court martials of a gunner and the master's assistant, but no information about charges or findings. Is anyone able to shed any light on this? Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written: Pass
2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. Pass though the article seems to rely heavily on one source for reference. I would recommend adding more from different sources to ensure that its neutrality is never brought into question.
3. It is broad in its coverage. Pass, however the coverage of the article seems to focus primarily on the wreck and afterwards. More info should be added to the history before the wreck, if possible. Otherwise I'm not sure the article could ever be promoted to A- or FA- status.
4. It follows the neutral point of view policy. Pass no problems there.
5. It is stable. Pass
6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. Pass
7. Overall: The article is definately GA quality in my opinion. More sources, Images, and content would definatly be needed if it was to be promoted above GA, though. -Ed! (talk) 21:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)