Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mary Rose/archive1

Comments: Peter, this is a fantastic article and you've done a brilliant job expanding it to its present state. It's particularly impressive that this manged to get onto the DYK page as well, and that's a testament to how much work you've done. I'll give it a good read in the next few days (last time I read it was when it was a DYK) and add some comments then, but there is one thing that leaps out at me at first glance that I thought I'd mention sooner rather than later to give you time to work on it.

I'm a little worried about the referencing - I'm usually far more generous than some editors who want every sentence footnoted, but even I'm a little unsure that there's enough refs here. There are whole sections relying on one single footnote at the end of the paragraph (such as Deterioration, Modern rediscovery, Salvage etc...) - now I imagine that the single ref covers all before it, but I think it might need to be a bit more specific than that. As an example, the Barber Surgeon's Cabin section covers several subjects not directly related to the last sentence - I would hope for seperate refs for at least the first and second sentences as well (especially the first, its quite a strong assertion). This is the same at other sections reyling on one or two refs. I hate to say it, but as it stands I could easily add quite a lot of citation needed tags to the article.

As I said I'll have a more thorough read in the next few days, but I just wanted to highlight this quickly to give you as much time as possible. Cheers, Ranger Steve (talk) 13:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First off, thanks for taking a thorough look at the article and for your positive comments. It's a nice thing to hear after all those months of tedious toil.

I'll see what I can do about the first sentence of "Barber-surgeon's cabin". I agree that it can be seen as subjective, though it's quickly obvious once you start reading literature that the chest is one of the finds that is mostly frequently cited as important. I don't agree about the rest of the section, though. The explanation of the role of the barber-surgeon is merely background that is directly relevant to the summary of the finds, and all of it is easily referenced with Before the Mast (Gardiner 2005, that is).

Depending on whether a paragraph covers simple chronologies of events or summaries of contentious or complicated issues, they'll require different levels of referencing. That's why "History as a shipwreck" has fewer notes than "Causes of sinking". There are no hard rules about footnote density and the fact that some editors prefer to use citations more often than others doesn't mean that everyone has to follow their example. In general, I'm sure I've not written The Perfectly Referenced article, and I welcome suggestions for improvement, but I imagine that these, like any other suggestion for improvement, should be reasonably specific.

Peter ^Isotalo 08:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry, but I’m not going to go through the entire article and then list each sentence here. There are loads of sentences that require a reference, as they are challengeable claims. In the main you’ve done a very good job in keeping the topic of a paragraph focussed on one issue, and I can see that the final citation likely covers earlier sentences (per point 4 here). But not always. In some paragraphs the coverage of subjects is too wide for me to confidently assume that the single footnote at the end covers everything. Some para’s don’t seem to be referenced at all, given that the final sentence is a quotation (eg. Contemporary accounts) and I presume that the ref is for that alone (it should be). Some other quotations aren’t directly referenced at all. Like I said, I’m a lot more relaxed about this than some editors, but there are people who could pepper this with fact tags. You’ve got two editors suggesting more footnotes throughout the article now, please consider that. Ranger Steve (talk) 20:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if we're not in agreement on this, but I have trouble understanding some of the points made here. I'll try to to explain my doubts as best I can:

I've gone through the article by searching for every singe quotation mark and I could only find two that were somewhat ambiguous, which I amended.[2][3] All other quotations appear very clearly cited to me.

As for paragraphs ending in a quotation, the first paragraph of "Contemporary accounts" and the second paragraph of "Sails and rigging" are the only examples in the whole article. Both are preceded by explanation directly tied to the quote and everything before that is cited separately.

From my experience 90% of the content on Wikipedia, including that which is obviously referenced, is apt to be fact tagged by someone as long as a footnote is deemed to be too far from a randomly chosen statement. Often this is done without reading full paragraphs or sometimes even entire sentences, and hardly ever does one actually attempt to look anything up. Anyone can point to a random fact and challenge it, but if it can't be motivated, it seems to become a meta-discussion about Wikipedia policy rather than genuine verifiability.

If you believe the article needs additional references, please specify them. Maybe not every last one, but at least a few more specific examples. Even if I've disagreed with some of the specifics, I have bolstered those that are somewhat ambiguous. I'm sure we can reach a compromise that both can be content with if we try to respect each other's opinions on this.

Peter ^Isotalo 23:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t worry, I don’t intend to oppose the article or cite endless policy, but there is still a need for referencing. Some hard facts need to be footnoted – for example, in Hand Held Weapons, the figures of longbows carried and recovered are both mentioned at the start of the para, but are cited by a footnote several sentences later that appears to be about how the weapons would have been used. These are 2 different fields and should be separately cited. The first line of the para after the table in crew is the same. A lot of information in the Deterioration section rests on a footnote that describes factors related to rediscovery, rather than deterioration. The detail on Abinett in the rediscovery section, the groups involved in the first part of modern rediscovery and the specifics of the two acts in the following paragraph. The details of the Vasa and the separate ideas to raise the wreck also rely on a footnote about the a different aspect in the Salvage section.

In other areas too many references are ascribed to one footnote. Number 51 is probably the worst example (3 people referencing a whole para in 1 footnote in the 1st French War), but there are lots of others. Where these references are describing several different things they should be separated accordingly.

Footnotes are also important to demonstrate that text isn’t OR. The naming section in construction is a good example. Where does the common assumption about the name come from? Who says it? The ref at the end of the sentence is about the naming in honour of the King and Queen and it leaves the earlier section looking like your own analysis of naming techniques (no offence).

These are just examples, but I think that they are important in an FA. Ranger Steve (talk) 17:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have a closer look at the multiple ref notes, but as far as I recall, most of these are examples of merely bolstered refs, ie bonus citations where either could be removed without actually jeapordizing the verifiability of the text. In a few cases the text might be a merged summary of the information found in two references in the sense that where one source does not give full details, the other fills in (not as in trying to "merge" contradictions or disagreements). In those cases it's reasonable to refer scrupulous readers to more than one reference since the discussion is about straightforward chronology rather than differing scholarly opinions. I'll have to get back to this when I can check Rule and Loades directly.

I've made a few tweaks to amend misunderstandings about referencing and I also split one of the three-author notes.[4]

A few detailed comments, though:

• The naming issue has been clarified to indicate who claims what. That various authors have assumed that the ship was named after the ship's sister seems rather obvious to me since it's logical on the surface. However, it becomes very dubious if you put it into a historical context as Loades and Marsden did. I'm sure it's possible to trace the origins of the association to Mary Tudor into the literature, but it seems very difficult since no one ever really cites or explains the claim.
• The first paragraph of "Salvage" is a cohesive narrative that describes the salvage along with minimal background info. To include mention of for example Vasa in this context is something I have trouble seeing as a "separate field". If read out of context, as in literally not reading the entire paragraph, it could tentatively be defined as a completely separate statement, but certainly not contentious. And since literally all of this is described in the reference cited, I have trouble seeing why anyone would have valid reason to question it.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Military career" has been checked against Loades, Marsden and Rodger. Some tweaks have been made (like removing some bonus citations) and all references match very well now. Everything except Rule (I'll get my hands on it some time next week) also checks out. Peter ^Isotalo 06:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rule has been checked, and I was able to bolster a few things with Stirland with the help of old notes and Google Book previews. I think I've gone through just about every citation by now. Peter ^Isotalo 13:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, after a read through, I have some more comments:

• General

• As I said, more footnotes.

• See comment above. Peter ^Isotalo 08:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• On occasion a historian or researcher is quoted or referred to without an explanation of who he/she is (ie just a surname). It might look better if their full name and profession is clarified in the prose.

• Marsden is repeated only by surname a few times, but he's introduced in full before that. Coates, Watt and Barker are mentioned in a context of "modern historians" and are specified in the references so I thought that a full introduction would be cumbersome. And I frankly don't know the exact nature of their historic specialty. Is it really common practice to introduce scholars who don't have a major impact on the topic in full? Peter ^Isotalo 11:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Marsden is referred to twice (in Crew and 1st French War merely as Marsden, before being referred to as Marine archaeologist Peter Marsden in the 2nd French War, It would be far better to have his identity established in the first usage of his name. Likewise Watt is introduced in a rather unmeaning way in the sentence “Peter Carew's claim of insubordination has been given support by Watt based on records of an epidemic…” I don’t really want to have to search the references to see who Watt is. A simple intro of archaeologist or historian before the name would clarify what each person’s speciality is when their opinion is being presented. Ranger Steve (talk) 20:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah. Didn't notice that the introduction came after the first mention. That, Watt, de Brossard and Barker have been fixed. Watt apparently passed away just recently and was more than just your average medical historian.[5] Coates is proving difficult. As far as I recall, I was not able to get my hands on his article, but had to cite Stirland, who discusses it. Stirland is unavailable to me for at least a month so we'll see if I can actually dig it up in some other way. Peter ^Isotalo 23:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks good! FWIW I think Watt's description definitely enhances the esection. Ranger Steve (talk) 15:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Background and history

• Unless I've missed them, there are no references to either the Navy Royal or the Italian Wars, which I'd kind of expect in an article about an era like this.

• For the Italian wars, see below. Tudor navy is linked in the lead, though. As for "Navy Royal", I've not used the term since it's never referred to by modern naval historians as a separate entity. What kind of references are you looking for more specifically? Peter ^Isotalo 06:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The background of the French Wars seems a little odd. Are these official wars with articles? Or are they the phases of the Italian Wars?

• This is a matter of perspective. WP:MILHIST has a tendency to view wars as sorted into very strict hierarchies of conflicts. The problem is that the sources used here don't do that. They recognize the repeated wars between England and France as part of the larger European system of politics and and alliances, but they never call them the "Italian Wars". When I tried to link them while working on the article I discovered that the English intervention were just about completely missing from the articles, so the links merely looked confusing. So I'm not sure what to do since this is an article about a ship, not the series of wars it fought in. Peter ^Isotalo 06:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, perhaps I should have said mentions of instead of references. The Italian Wars were the main wars taking place in Europe at the time of this ship’s career. At present the article describes three wars without providing a link to a more detailed article of any sort, and doesn’t really tell me the background of the events the ship was involved in. What was the first French war? Who declared it and why? The Italian Wars are the background articles and explain these events well. I imagine there must be loads of references linking the Mary Rose to the Wars, even if they are Italian War centric rather than Mary Rose centric. At present I’m afraid without linking to the background it’s like having an article on HMS Royal Oak without any mention of, or links to, the First and Second World Wars. I’d have added them myself but didn’t want to upset the prose too much.

The Navy Royal is a commonly used term, even within the Royal Navy and again I think it needs mentioning. Ranger Steve (talk) 20:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I actually meant references in the sense of mentions, so my bad. I could swear that those articles were had far less relevant coverage when I checked them back in July, but I suppose I didn't look hard enough. I hope the {{main}} linkage I've added will do the trick.

Both the sources I've used don't use the term "Navy Royal" in that way, as though it was an established organization and an official term. I'm sure there are lots of people using the term though it was merely the modern Royal Navy with an older name, but that's something that Loades and especially Rodger openly disagree with. Considering that, I'm not keen on using the term as lightly as the Royal Navy web article does. Can this be worked around with any alternatives?

Peter ^Isotalo 23:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• My understanding is that Navy Royal was the term used at the time, whilst Tudor Navy is a historical descriptive. Would it be possible to reword instances of royal navy with 'Navy Royal' at least? My thinking is that even if not official, this is how the fleet was referred to at the time, and the Mary Rose was part of that fleet. The RN website is pretty clear that was the name used and is easily a RS. I see it in a lot of books on the period (and I'm surprised if the two authors you mention disagree with it). The Italian Wars links are good. In my mind I'd been thinking of prose additions which is why I didn't do it myself, but this works just as well. Ranger Steve (talk) 15:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm hesitant about disqualifying the RN as a reliable source altogether, but it's obvious that an online historical introduction shouldn't be ranked as the equal of two major works written by established naval historians. I don't know how the term "Navy Royal" is viewed by British naval historians in general, but since both the references used for the historical background use it quite hesitantly, I tried to include the term with a kind of caveat. Lemme know what you think. Peter ^Isotalo 11:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Better, but I'm surprised you wouldn't consider the RN as reliable. You do seem to be placing an awful lot of emphasis on specific sources. For sections like the Historical Background there really is no harm in expanding your research to include other sources that aren't specifically focussed on the Mary Rose (but that mention it in it's proper context). Ranger Steve (talk) 20:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The background to the Battle of the Solent makes it seem as if the aim was to land on the Isle of Wight, but as I understand it, the landings were a reaction to the events of the sea battle. Can this be reworded?

• Attacking the Isle of Wight was used as a method to lure the English fleet out to fight according to Rodger, but the intention all along seems to have to land troops. I'm a bit stumped on how to reword since it looks fairly clear to me. Does anyone else have any suggestions? Peter ^Isotalo 14:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I've been doing some reading and the French strategy seems to be rather a matter of opinion! What I meant was that I didn't think their strategy was necessarily to land on the IoW, but somewhere in the mainland. The decision to land on the Isle was, as you say, an effort to force the English hand rather than their plan. Anyway, I've tried to removed any ambiguity by piping the link and removing the brackets section. What do you think? Ranger Steve (talk) 17:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Quite clear. That should solve it.Peter ^Isotalo 13:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• One of the armament inventories is listed as 1546. Is this a typo or a post sinking inventory (in which case it might be worth stating in the prose)?

• I think I've solved it with a parenthesis and two footnotes. Explaining it in prose seems like it would be going off topic, especially since Anthony Roll is a separate and fully-developed article. Peter ^Isotalo 23:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm blind, it is of course clarified in the paragraph before the table (in Bronze and Iron Guns). Many apologies! Ranger Steve (talk) 17:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Raising

• It doesn't really explain anywhere in the article why it was decided to raise the ship. It was a fairly massive undertaking and I'm sure it wasn't a decision made lightly. I believe there was a fair amount of discussion about it at the time, and it might be helpful to explain to the reader why what is essentially a total wreck was raised from the seabed.

• The reason for raising the ship is in the paragraph of "Survey and excavation", no? Peter ^Isotalo 08:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Er… no. Excavation and raising are two different things. What the section needs is a mention of why it was felt the ship should be raised at such enormous effort. The line “Plans for raising, conserving and preparing the hull for public display were now for the first time discussed” doesn’t really delve that far into it. There were very important considerations to be made and such a raising had never been attempted before. Ranger Steve (talk) 20:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at. Considering the historical significance and unique preservation status of the vessel it seems to be rather self-explanatory to me. What important considerations, other than purely technical aspects, are you thinking of? Ethics of scholarship? The dynamics of historical presentation to the general public? Museum practices? Peter ^Isotalo 23:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• What I mean is that raising a wreck is a very uncommon activity, and I don't think the reasons for it are obvious. As I said, excavation and salvage are two different things and the logic behind deciding to raise this wreck isn't obvious - the Vasa is a bit more because it's complete, whilst the Mary Rose is far from recognisable to most people. Even before considering the mechanics of how they would do it, the huge financial and technical considerations had to be considered when deciding whether or not to raise it. Its no small beer and the Mary Rose Trust surely didn't just think "hey, why don't we raise it as well?" A very very important aspect of the ship's history is only explained in one line and I think it needs more explanation. There is some detail here that makes a starting point. Ranger Steve (talk) 20:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The intention, if not the practical decision, to raise the ship was not something that appeared in 1978. It had been the goal all along (it's mentioned in conjunction with the founding of the MR Committeee) and the first phases of survey and excavation were in large part a way to probe how realistic that goal was. I think this a matter of lack of clarity in the text more than lack of information, and I've tried to reword it to reflect this a bit. It's pretty much exactly what Dobbs is writing in the linked paper, while the rest is really just about the technical details. Peter ^Isotalo 18:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• On that subject, how much did it cost, not only to raise it, but to house it permanently in Portsmouth and to treat it?

• Absolutely no idea. I know that the salvage operation cost £2.8 million. But the total sum of all the expenses is a figure I've never seen in any source. Overall, I haven't seen too many budget statements overall. Peter ^Isotalo 06:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this is important. HLF has so far donated 7 million or something and has recently pledged another 15. These are details I would expect in an FA. Ranger Steve (talk) 20:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Trying to work up sums of anything will be difficult without stumbling dangerously close to original reasearch, so I suppose individual examples will be more appropriate. I'll see what figures I can actually find. Peter ^Isotalo 23:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I imagine a grand total would be impossible to ascertain, but some mentions, particularly the bid for the new museum would look good in the appropriate sections. Ranger Steve (talk) 15:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Related to that, I believe there has been some controversy about the huge amount of money that has been thrown at the project. If RSs can be found I think this needs to be incorporated.

• Controversy? In a private project? Never seen even a hint of it, so I wouldn't know where to look. Peter ^Isotalo 06:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• A good look doesn't find much I admit, but there is at least controversy about the decision to raise the wreck, and possibly display the bodies recovered. That should be incorporated at least. Ranger Steve (talk) 07:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I've read a bit about the fact that hte human remains have been a sensitive issue, but very little. Certainly no detailed statements. The controversies about raising the wreck I'm unfamiliar with, though. Are you talking about the modern perspective of preferably not raising anything from an underwater environment at all or something that was discussed in the late 70s and early 80s? I hope we're not moving towards a "Controversy" section, btw. :-) Peter ^Isotalo 08:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No, I wouldn’t recommend a controversy section, but a line or two in the appropriate areas. Per Wikipedia:Featured article criteria 1b. Perhaps controversy is the wrong word about the raising, but there has to be some mention of why the ship was raised and how a fairly major decision was made. I can’t believe everyone though it was a brilliant idea, “lets just do it” without at least considering the fact it was disturbing a grave, closing a section of the Solent for weeks and raising the funds. Ranger Steve (talk) 20:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I suppose there might have been complaints, but I still can't recall even seeing hints of this anywhere. So the question is, where exactly are we supposed to look for references of dichord? Peter ^Isotalo 23:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Added summaries of disagreement on salvage procedure and display location mentioned in Childs, including a hint of grumbling about the cost. Peter ^Isotalo 14:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd done some reading the last few days and was going to say that there does seem to be so little about it (and I still can't find where I'd read about it) that it wouldn't be neccesary! That said the bit you've added is interesting! Ranger Steve (talk) 17:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• On the positive side, I think this is one of the most expensive and ambitious archaeological projects ever isn't it (or at least maritime archaeology)? Again, if it can be I think this needs incorporating.

• The status as one of the biggest archaeological projects ever is actually in the lead, but I added it to "Archaeology" as well. Dunno if it requires a lengthier explanation, but I would imagine that anyone who reads about the details has a good idea that it wasn't a minor undertaking. Peter ^Isotalo 08:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I saw it was in the lead, but not developed in the main text. I’m afraid hard refs are needed for such details. Ranger Steve (talk) 20:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• How about the newly added section, though? Doesn't that cover the most relevant aspects of the scope of the project? Peter ^Isotalo 23:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, probably being blind again. Can you point me to the section? Ranger Steve (talk) 17:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Newly edited section, rather. The first paragraph in "Archaeology". Peter ^Isotalo 13:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah that bit. Yeah, again these are extraordinary, challengeable claims that I think warrant specific cites. The reader should not be expected to rely on a much later cite that references a different claim. Ranger Steve (talk) 20:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It's now separately cited. Peter ^Isotalo 18:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• One of the external links points to an article about a 2003 discovery. Can this be incorporated as well?

• Added a section.[6] Peter ^Isotalo 13:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks good Ranger Steve (talk) 20:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I have nagging concerns about the wording of this sentence: "The excavation of the Mary Rose wrecksite proved that it was possible to achieve the same level of exactness in underwater excavations as on land" Did it really do that? It is largely impossible to achieve the same level of exactness in maritime archaeology as on land. This is subjective of course; different land environments allow for different levels of exactness (the difference between excavating a bone in two different soil types for instance), but it is pretty difficult to excavate anything underwater in situ in the same manner as on dry land. I'd like to see a few more independent refs for this sentence, or a bit of a rewording perhaps.

• I'm not an archaeologist and can't vouch for Marsden claim in full so I tried a rewording. However, Marsden discusses that the MR project managed to record stratigraphy in detail and that it was done layer by layer, something that was apparently thought impossible or at least very difficult at the time. Peter ^Isotalo 11:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Think it's fine. Ranger Steve (talk) 17:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I might come up with some more things later as I review it some more. Otherwise, really really good work Peter. Ranger Steve (talk) 20:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One more query - did the ship definitely heel to port when she sank? There are a lot of accounts that say Starboard (a la this painting)? Ranger Steve (talk) 16:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Merely confused sides in describing the sinking (though not deterioration and whathaveyou). Peter ^Isotalo 13:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]