Talk:HMS Victoria (1887)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the HMS Victoria (1887) 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

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Military history WikiProject     (Rated Start-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. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (general topics): Maritime warfare task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): British military history task force WikiProject Ships (Rated Start-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. Start rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale Mid rated as Mid-importance on the assessment scale WikiProject Shipwrecks     (Rated B-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. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. ??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating 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

This article has a deprecated, subst'ed or incorrect infobox and needs a new one. Please replace with {{Infobox Ship Begin/doc}}

A very interesting and well written article. However, as a landlubber myself, I don't understand why a 90 degree turn is more dangerous and requires more space than a 180 degree turn (this seems counter intuitive to me!). Would it be possible to include a diagram showing how this incident occurred? twitter 13:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The 90-degree turn was a tactical maneuver that realigned two parallel columns into a single battle line. The lead ship in each column would simultaneously turn 90 degrees (to port, for example). As each pair of ships in the two lines reached their respective turning points, they too would simultaneously execute the same 90-degree turn. In the meantime, however, the lead ship of the starboard column would be bearing down on the turning point of the port column. Therefore, the columns had to be far enough apart so that all the ships in the port column could execute the turn before being rammed by the lead ship in the starboard column. If the columns were properly spaced, then the lead ship of the starboard column would automatically be in the correct position behind the last ship of the port column, creating a single line. TDJ 15:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah now I understand. Thanks very much. twitter 14:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

This paragraph:

She was the first battleship to be propelled by triple expansion steam engines and also the first Royal Navy ship to be equipped with a steam turbine, which was used to power a dynamo.

The 'also' is unnecessary and It's ambiguous as to whether Victoria was the first HM Ship to be equipped with steam turbines or a turbo/electric ship. The mixed precedents first battleship, first Royal Navy Ship seem contrived and make it look though the paragraph's been edited down from something more verbose.