Talk:Mary Rose

Latest comment: 8 months ago by ThoughtIdRetired in topic Sailing performance placement in article
Featured articleMary Rose is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 19, 2010.
Did You KnowOn this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 1, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
March 8, 2010Featured article candidatePromoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 4, 2010.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the Mary Rose was a Tudor period warship that sank during the Battle of the Solent in 1545 and was salvaged (pictured) by maritime archaeologists 437 years later?
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 19, 2011, July 19, 2013, July 19, 2015, July 19, 2019, July 19, 2020, July 19, 2022, and July 19, 2024.
Current status: Featured article

Press for Wikipedia

edit
  • Culture24 Staff (2010-01-04). "Unseen Mary Rose pictures revealed in groundbreaking Wikipedia deal". Retrieved 2010-01-04.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

Lead

edit

An editor with a track record of being reverted by numerous editors in various articles is persisting in altering "The precise cause of her sinking is still not clear because of conflicting testimonies and a lack of conclusive physical evidence" to "The precise cause of her sinking is subject to conflicting testimonies and a lack of conclusive evidence." I think the original version, which states clearly that the cause is unclear is preferable to the vaguer version proposed by Delacroix-uk. S/he has been asked to stop edit warring and discuss his/her proposed alteration here. Comments welcome. Tim riley talk 13:45, 11 July 2022 (UTC)Reply


Lead image

edit

Two images have fairly recently occupied the lead.

I prefer the one on the right (COI I took it) firstly because it shows the ship now. Yes water pouring over it may be more spectacular but its not how the ship has looked for a number of years. It also shows more of the full length of the ship. The one of the right is a higher technical quality with a higher resolution and less noise.©Geni (talk) 09:02, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Just wanted to say I agree. Left one looks interesting, but right one has better encyclopedic value and higher quality. And it's not like we are voting delete, the first image will still be around somewhere. --LordPeterII (talk) 07:44, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

"The Downs, west of Kent"

edit

The second sentence of the second section of the heading Sails and rigging says:

In March 1513 a contest was arranged off The Downs, west of Kent, in which she raced against nine other ships.

According to the Wikipedia article The Downs is placed east of Kent. Is this a lapsus? LittleGun (talk) 12:27, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sailing performance placement in article

edit

The placement of the discussion of Mary Rose's sailing performance in the section headed Sails and rigging is misleading. Good performance of a sailing vessel relies on both the hull shape and the efficiency of the rig – this is something that is not always understood. Because this is clear to those who work in this field, it is not easy to find a reference that clearly states this point. However it is tangential to such discussions. For instance "...confirming that the shape of the hull would have provided a good performance under sail"[1] "‘Windward Sailing Capabilities of Ancient Vessels’ (Palmer, 2009b) provided the theoretical physical basis for calculating the windward capabilities of ancient ships as a function of the efficiency of the hull and the rig."[2] Palmer is perhaps the clearest (though he is only talking about sailing to windward): "The windward performance ... depends upon the hydrodynamic efficiency of the hull and the aerodynamic efficiency of the sails. ... it is only when they come together on a complete vessel ... that their combined potential is realised.[3]

Extensive discussions about hull shape and performance in the context of later sailing vessels can be found in David R MacGregor's books, particularly in Fast Sailing Ships[4] and The Tea Clippers.[5] (Of course, these sources generally discuss speed – however things like sea-kindliness are important factors for a ship with broadside guns.)

I will therefore move the coverage of sailing performance into a separate section to avoid any confusion from the unintended implication that this is all dictated by the actual sails. This is also a good place to introduce the surprising (to the archaeologists) length/beam ratio. I hope to make these changes later today. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 08:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)Reply


References

  1. ^ Bonino, Marco (September 2018). "A Further Proposal for the Hull Lines of the Madrague de Giens Ship ( c .70 BC): HULL LINES AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE MADRAGUE DE GIENS". International Journal of Nautical Archaeology. 47 (2): 443–459. doi:10.1111/1095-9270.12300.
  2. ^ Gal, D.; Saaroni, H.; Cvikel, D. (2 January 2023). "Windward Sailing in Antiquity: The Elephant in the Room". International Journal of Nautical Archaeology. 52 (1): 179–194. doi:10.1080/10572414.2023.2186688. ISSN 1057-2414.
  3. ^ Palmer, Colin (September 2009). "Windward Sailing Capabilities of Ancient Vessels". International Journal of Nautical Archaeology. 38 (2): 314–330. doi:10.1111/j.1095-9270.2008.00208.x.
  4. ^ MacGregor, David R (1988). Fast Sailing Ships, their design and construction, 1775-1875 (Second ed.). London: Conway Maritime Press. ISBN 0 87021895 6.
  5. ^ MacGregor, David R. (1983). The Tea Clippers, Their History and Development 1833-1875. Conway Maritime Press Limited. ISBN 0-85177-256-0.