Talk:Mary Rose

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)

Would this article benefit from a separate informational notes section? At present, notes that really form part of the article content are all mixed up with the references. An example of this is
It was not until the 1590s that the word "broadside" in English was commonly used to refer to gunfire from the side of a ship rather than the ship's side itself; Rodger 1996, pp. 312, 316
and perhaps
Burningham 2001 gives a helpful account of sailing with this version of square rig, though this refers to a replica of a ship built around 85 years later than Mary Rose.
I suggest the simplest way of doing this would be with the widely used {{efn}} template. We should not be confused by the presence of cited references in these informational notes – any article content should be supported by references, and the efn template allows this to be done without any trouble.

I note that there have been previous attempts to do this, such as by User:LlywelynII. An article that recently was improved by such a change is Galley, through the efforts of User:User-duck. I note that the overwhelming majority of Good Articles that have informational notes put them in a separate section. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 10:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

In absence of any objections, I have introduced the change discussed above, in just one of the examples given. Incidentally, I understand that a separate notes section is of great help to any reader who uses a screen reader – so this arrangement assists with the accessibility ambitions that an editor should have. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 09:04, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

The short reference Weightman (1957) appears to refer to Heraldry In The Royal Navy, Crests And Badges Of H.M. Ships 1 Jan. 1957 by Alfred E. Weightman (Author). I don't have a copy to verify that it supports the article content.

Correct and ref found in old version of article

Rodger (1996) appears to be Rodger, Nicholas A. M. (1996). The wooden world: an anatomy of the Georgian navy (Norton paperback ed.). New York, NY: Norton. ISBN 9780393314694.

No it was a Mariner's Mirror paper

Wille (2005) appears to be an MA candidate paper, and as such would not be an RS. However, I am uncertain about this conclusion.

No, this is a bookThoughtIdRetired _TIR 14:26, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

All fixed now as per additions above (by going back to an old version of the article). ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 22:58, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

I uploaded many photos to c:Category:Collections of the Mary Rose Museum which might be of use. TimSC (talk) 23:05, 11 March 2026 (UTC)