Jump to content

Talk:SS Edmund Fitzgerald/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

I created this page for manual archiving. Right now it's items more than 2 years old. But it can include newer temporary items no longer of interest. North8000 (talk) 15:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

William Clay Ford response

If I remember correctly, the William Clay Ford's captian orginally decided not to help, and then had a change of heart. Unfortunatly, I can not remember where I heard this. TomStar81

You can get your answer on pages 88-90 of the paperback edition of "Mighty Fitz: The Sinking of the Edmund Fitzgerald" by Michael Schumacher. The captain of the Ford--Don Erikson--said, at the time: "Everybody said no, including me. But I talked to some of the guys on the boat, and I figured somebody had to go out there." (pgs. 89-90) Remember that the Ford had just emptied its cargo and would have to search on ballast.

That is not true. See the Coast Guard report, p 36, listed in the references. The Coast Guard launched their own search and rescue mission, but specifically asked seven commercial ships anchored in Whitefish Bay to help. Only two of these seven responded, William Clay Ford and Hilda Marjanne. The Hilda returned to Whitefish Bay after twenty minutes, judging the weather too harsh. The William Clay Ford searched throughout the night and into the next day. Ydorb 21:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

the news about the William Clay Ford's captain is true —the preceding unsigned comment is by 69.246.84.145 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I spoke to the Captain of the Ford today at the Michigan Shipwreck Festival put on by the Ford Seahorses in Ann Arbor, Michigan. He at first did not want to respond for fear he would lose the men in his crew. After some consideration with crewmembers they were all in agreement to go out to help. He told anyone that wanted to leave and return to shore they may do so without reprimand. After all he said "If it was my son out there I would want someone to help." They then left Whitefish Bay to search. 24.231.251.159 (talk) 04:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC) 28 February 2009

Who was Edmund Fitzgerald

Who was Edmund Fitzgerald? The name redirects here. For whom was the ship named and why? Rockhopper10r 23:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Quoting from the article:
It was named for one of Northwestern Mutual's CEOs

--Rogerd 18:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Destination

This article states that the ship was en route to Detroit, but Gordon Lightfoot's song says it was going to Cleveland. Which is correct? I know Lightfoot took some liberties in the song (e.g., referring to Mariner's Church as a cathedral). Rockhopper10r 14:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Lightfoot is wrong. AM2783 17:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)AM2783

It's called "Artistic license". The problem with songwriting is that you have to write lines that can actually be sung. Try to sing: "when it left fully loaded for Detroit" ... Won't work, unless you pronunce it DEE-troit, which sounds awkward. That's why Gordon chose Cleveland. Anyway, the Fitz was in fact bound for Cleveland after unloading in Detroit, so it's not that far from the truth.--Christian A. Schneider (talk) 11:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Worse, try singing, "when it left fully loaded for Zug Island." Jehochman Talk 15:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Lightfoot also got other facts wrong in the song. Many of the incidents described in the last hours and final moments of the ship amount to "poetic license." The captain, for example, never indicated the crew and ship we're in peril. If memory serves, when asked about problems, he said: "We're holding our own."

From the article: "Captain McSorley radioed another ship, Avafors, to report that Fitzgerald was suffering a bad list, had lost her radars, and had seas washing over her decks." == Ship was in peril. Jehochman Talk 15:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Rated speed?

Can somebody clarify? I've never heard this term before. Is this on a limiter, or a hull max, or what? Trekphiler 00:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

It's the maximum speed a ship can make with out placing undue stress on its machinery or hull. A ship can make more speed than that but it generally places more strain on the engine than is considered acceptable, possibly even permanent damage. As such most ships don't make a habit of using more than their rated speed.

There is no limiter or anything like that, ships are too complicated to add bits like that which serve no purpose.

AM2783 17:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)AM2783

Boat/Ship

Someone changed all of the references from boat to ship. According to the lake freighter article, "These vessels are traditionally called boats, not ships". --rogerd 22:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

They may be called 'boats' in lakers lingo, still the rest of the world would refer to them as 'ships'. Besides, what's it now? A boatwreck? --Christian A. Schneider (talk) 21:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Wreck Coordinates

I didn't see any reason for Philgarringer to remove the coordinates of the wreck, so I reverted his removal. If there is a valid reason, I'll listen. Catbar (Brian Rock) 23:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Alternatively, I don't see any reason for the coordiantes to be in the article, which is why I removed them. The site of the wreck is a grave, and should not be disturbed.

Please read the section of this article entitled "Loved ones fear exploitation".

[1]

It seems that the exact coordinates of the wreck are not needed, and their removal does not take away anything from the article.

For this reason, I have again removed the coordinates. Philgarringer 21:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

That's a pretty weak argument, IMO. The site of nearly all shipwrecks is a grave, and should be treated with respect. By that logic, would you also argue that no one should ever go scuba diving on shipwrecks or perform salvage operations on wrecked vessels?
Furthermore, if someone is determined to "exploit" the wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald, not having the coordinates on Wikipedia isn't going to impair that individual in the least. By that reasoning, Wikipedia shouldn't contain any information that could be used for nefarious purposes, like how nuclear weapons work. The real question here should be whether the coordinates are relevant to the article. I would argue that they are most certainly relevant and therefore should be included.--chris.lawson 21:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

How are the EXACT GPS coordinates relevant to this article?

As far as nuclear weapons, does Wikipedia contain exact plans on how to build and deploy them in an urban setting? If any individual can find these plans anywhere else , then why SHOULDN'T Wikipedia have plans and diagrams and detailed instructions on their deployment in an urban setting, according to your argument?

Again, I ask you to refer to the article that I linked to above. Philgarringer 22:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

They're relevant for the same reason exact GPS coordinates would be relevant to any shipwreck article.--chris.lawson 00:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


You have not answered the question. Why, exactly, are the exact coordinates relevant? Philgarringer 00:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Why *aren't* they? The wreck is divable with a permit from Canadian authorities.--chris.lawson 01:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


Chris, think of it simply put this way - when the chance of money being made is presented to people, there's a good change - grave or no grave - that they'll plunder it, and to hell with permits & laws. :( As it is some fool who claims to be a historian or other such type had planned back in '06 to recover the Fitz's cargo and deliver it to where it was supposed to go(Yeah, I was like "WTF????") http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaiNHjmBMWQ

Whether they actually did it or not, I don;t know. But if they did, they should pay dearly, if you know what I mean. 75.8.39.155 (talk) 19:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The Fitz wreck site was plundered by a group who were working under a dive permit issued to Joe MacInnis by the Ontario Ministry of Culture. Watch this video for the evidence: Operation Taconite on the Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald. --Wpwatchdog (talk) 01:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

scuba penetration allows.

Could we change, "It found Edmund Fitzgerald lying in two large pieces in 530 feet (160 m) of water, far deeper than scuba penetration allows."

With, "It found Edmund Fitzgerald lying in two large pieces in 530 feet (160 m) of water."?

530 ffw (feet of fresh water) is doable using technical SCUBA dive equipment. That would correct a mistake of fact. I figured I would see what everyone thought before making the change. (My first wiki edit so bear with me.)

HawkeyeCanada 15:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Be bold and go right ahead and fix it.--chris.lawson 02:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

infobox?

I was considering adding {{Infobox Ship}}, but realized I was actually surprised there wasn't one already. Would it not be appropriate for any reason, or can I add one? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 16:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

{{Infobox Commercial Ship}} might be more appropriate. Last I saw Infobox ship was more appropriate for warships, but they have changed it since then. --Dual Freq 16:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
T:ICS looks great, I'll use that one--Thanks! T:IS is more for military ships, but I didn't know of a template that would work better. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 17:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Where's the rest??

Debris field represented by circle.

Ships stats say it was 729ft long. Uderwater survey says it's laying in two pieces of 253ft and 276ft. Where's the other 200ft?? Small pieces in the debris field? Never found? Almost a third of the ship is unaccounted for. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.30.202.29 (talk) 19:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

SS Edmund Fitzgerald#Underwater survey says, "Metal and taconite heaps between the bow and stern comprised the remnants of the mid-section." The circle in the image indicates a debris field saying "Approximate area of wreckage". --Dual Freq 22:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Statistics

[Following comment moved from top to foot of page 8 May 2007:]

Corrections on the statistics: Draft: 39 feet (11.9 m): The dimension of the ship who is 39 feet is depth, the total height of the hull, not just her underwater portion, which is around 26 feets. Deadweight tonnage: 8686 long tons (8,825 metric tonnes): This tonnage is the net tonnage, who is a volumic measure of the ship, representing all the commercial volume disponible in a ship. Capacity: 26,600 register tons (75,900 m³): 26600 is the deadweight capacity, or the quantity of cargo + fuel + all others provisionning for the ship. See as example: [[2]] 66.38.192.219 02:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)C.-S. Huot

Corrected and cited per your source. Thank you. Kablammo 01:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Three Sisters?

Reference is made to the "Three Sisters" in the article, without any explanation as to what this means. The term does not appear in the official report of the accident. Tmangray 18:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it refers to a series of three rogue waves. It's mentioned in the Rogue wave (oceanography) article, but the source doesn't have a web link. Google three sisters rogue wave and there are some examples. I didn't put it there, but I'm pretty sure I heard the term before seeing this article. --Dual Freq 23:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Crew

Where'd the crew go? I mean, have they found, like, the bones yet?Philippe Auguste 01:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

No, not found. And not likely to be. Lake Superior is full of fish & other hungry predators. 206.55.187.170 (talk) 09:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Edmund Fitzgerald adventurer Joe MacInnis reported that in July 1994, explorer Frederick Shannon's Expedition 94 to the Fitzgerald discovered and filmed a man's body near the port side of her pilothouse, not far from the open door, "fully clothed, wearing an orange life jacket, and lying face down in the sediment."[1]Maritime historian Mark Thompson reported, "A videotape of the Fitzgerald's sunken hull in 1995 shows the body of a crewmember lying alongside the bow of the ship. The body is clad in a lifejacket. (Thompson's emphasis.) That's clear evidence that at least one crew member was concerned enough about the possibility of sinking that he put on a life jacket." [2] The videotape that Thompson is referring to was actually filmed in 1994 and produced in 1995. Additional information about the body find at the Fitzgerald wreck site is available on a You Tube video called "Expedition 94 on the Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 16:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Bottoming out

I have been for many years of my life, interested in what really happened. I was watching the documentary on the history channel when the theroy of running aground in the shcoals caught my attention. The question i have is were the schoals checked for scrapings or debris from the Fitz? This would comfirm that theroy. There was much said bout the ships resting place and how it was found, but nothing i heard has confirmed that it actually did hit the schoals.

Curious 70.226.14.3 (talk) 21:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The lake is large, and there was an intense storm. It seems unlikely that any evidence could be found on a sandy shoal. Based on my reading of the official report, it seems likely that the ship had some sort of mishap, perhaps heavy equipment breaking loose (deck crane or spare propeller blade), or striking heavy flotsam (such as a shipping container), or running aground causing her to start taking on water some time in the afternoon. Apparently radio transmissions revealed that her radars, her fence (heavy cable around the deck railing), and deck vents (that prevent water from seeping into the ballast tanks) had suffered damage. As she settled lower in the water, waves washed over her decks causing further loss of freeboard, especially with the missing vents. Finally a large wave, possibly a rogue wave, may have sent so much water over her decks that the weight of the water caused one or more of the cargo hatches covers to collapse. Jehochman Talk 02:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The ship, pile-driving into the lake bottom, snapped in half, and its stern landed upside-down on the bottom. (If so, given the ship's length vs. the depth of the water, the stern could still have been above water when the bow hit bottom.)

Doesn't the phrase "pile-driving into the lake bottom" imply that the ship went down in a vertical orientation? That wouldn't be possible if the ship's length was greater than the water depth. Or was something else meant? SlowJog (talk) 01:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

When Fitzgerald first vanished, it was widely believed the boat had snapped in half on the lake surface owing to storm action. Similar surface breakups in the past suggested bow and stern sections would be found miles apart on the lake floor. When underwater surveys revealed these sections were just yards from each other, it was concluded that Fitzgerald had instead broken upon hitting the lake floor.

Although bow and stern sections are usually found miles apart after surface breakups, it is possible that they could hit bottom near each other. However, the small area of the debris field supports the bottom breakup theory. SlowJog (talk) 01:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I want to bring something into question that might be worth looking into and editing. I find the following phrase unbelievable; “Similar surface breakups in the past suggested bow and stern sections would be found miles apart on the lake floor”. I don’t find it reasonable for two pieces of ship to get “miles apart” in only 530 feet of decent. Could the “similar surface breakups” be over the ocean with thousands of feet of water below and therefore not really “similar”? Thank you. ThomasSchroeder (talk) 17:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that you are right to question the statement that in essence says: "If the halves were close together, that shows it probably didn't break up on the surface." In fact, I think that that inference is faulty. While I'm sure that "miles apart" can occur for surface breakups, that could be due to mile(s) deep water as you noted, or to ships with more watertight compartmentalization where the two halves could float for a while. I also question the "similar surface breakups" statement. It is unsourced. I think that to be "similar" in the important areas, it would have to be a loaded laker in similar depth water that broke up on the surface, where the halves ended up far apart. Sounds unlikely. I've read a lot of Great Lakes shipwreck books, and don't recall anything like that. North8000 (talk) 17:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you again, North8000. Hugh Bishop's book goes into the topic in detail. The whole section on theories needs a serious rewrite. I will start working on it soon.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 22:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Cool! North8000 (talk) 22:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

Unfortunately, this article does not meet the Good Article Criteria at this time. The article does not meet the verifiability criteria, as the majority is unreferenced (this was mentioned as a concern over two years ago in the FAC). Several entire sections are unreferenced. The references that are provided are not consistently formatted, and many of them contain insufficient information (at minimum, they need a title, publisher, accessdate and url). The prose isn't bad, although the lead still does not mention the ship itself (another concern remaining from the FAC). For an article this length, the lead should also be longer.

I don't see any evidence in the article for the claim that the sinking is "the most famous disaster in the history of Great Lakes shipping". Other statements also need some clarification. For example, "When Mrs. Fitzgerald went to christen the boat by breaking a champagne bottle over the bow, it took her three swings to break the bottle."--is there a superstition related to this? Consistency is also needed with SS vs. S.S.

Because these is so much work needed for the sourcing of the article, I am failing it at this time. It definitely has GA potential, and I would like to see it renominated in the future. Best wishes with this article, GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "the lead still does not mention the ship itself". It seems to me that the ship is mentioned, but perhaps you mean something other than what I'm thinking. --clpo13(talk) 02:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I suppose that could have been more clear. The lead should summarize the entire article, but it focuses exclusively on the sinking of the ship. The ship itself should be mentioned in the lead (ie. information from the "Construction and operation" section). GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Got it. I thought it might have been something along those lines, but I wasn't sure. --clpo13(talk) 04:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Ill-omened launch?

Respectfully, the mood of the text is a little melodramatic:
The event was troublesome. When Mrs. Edmund Fitzgerald went to christen the boat by smashing a champagne bottle over the bow, it took her three swings to break the bottle. She was 70+ years old I believe. Every try to break a full champagne bottle? The launch was delayed 36 minutes while the shipyard crew struggled to release the keel blocks. Upon launching sideways into the water, the boat crashed violently into a dock This ship was HUGE. The people working on had a healthy respect for the massive investment they were launching (not to mention the weight!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Farlane (talk • contribs) 12:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Anytime after a tradgedy happens, people will look back and point to instances that they consider to be omens. I had heard that a man witnessing the launch of the 'Fitz' suffered a fatal heart attack. The problem is that I heard that in an 'In Seach Of' or one of the many Discovery Channel shows of dubious veracity. This article is good in the fact that it seems to steer clear of the 'Great Lakes Triangle' mythos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.190.235.253 (talk) 20:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Weather of Nov. 10th's falling on Monday...

Have found several strange occurances - namely, severe weather on the lakes for subsequent Nov. 10th's which fall on Monday (the same day as in 1975 when the Fitz went down).

Could use a hand checking back farther as far as weather goes, to see if there might jusr be some sort of weird pattern here.

75.8.39.155 (talk) 19:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

"some sort of weird pattern here" -- well yeah, bad winter storms occur on Lake Superior in the winter.
Not only that, ice forms on the Lake in winter, but mysteriously melts every spring! (Being sarcastic here -- that 'weird pattern' is called weather.) 206.55.187.170 (talk) 09:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Should this page refer to the ship as if it were a human female?

Smedpull (talk) 06:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)smedpull

The feminine pronoun is an accepted form of reference for ships. Our guidelines state that 'she' should not be changed to 'it' without 'a substantial reason to do so.' Benea (talk) 08:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of "The Edmund Fitzgerald" piano concerto from article

All entries of my piano concerto, "The Edmund Fitzgerald", were completely deleted recently by the user Kablammo. I'm very concerned about this because it had appeared in the "Memorials" section for well over two years. The only minor change which I made was a brief mention of the work at the end of the opening paragraph of the article, with a link to a FREE copy of the score for study. I suspect that this is what prompted Kablammo to make the deletion, perhaps feeling that it was self-serving.

Like Lightfoot's song, my concerto is very relevant to the history, as well as to the broader appreciation and knowledge of the Fitzgerald shipwreck. Therefore, I strongly feel that the entries in their original form be posted once again. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Geoffreyapeterson (talk) 13:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Geoffrey, thank you for your post. As I posted (in part) on the IP's talk page:
Hello. I am going to revert this to the prior version, for these reasons:
  1. There do not appear to be independent, third-party sources for the statements; information from the piece's publisher is not independent.
  2. The mention in the introduction gives it undue prominence.
  3. The statements in the text characterizing the work are uncited, are not worded objectively, and appear to be a verbatim copy of text from a press kit.
If there is independent sourcing for this (such as a news artcle) I will be glad to add appropriate text myself. Please make any suggestions on the article's talk page.
Kablammo (talk) 13:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Thereafter I found one source, so I readded some text and posted this followup message at about the same time you were posting here:
I have added some text based on a press release. As the contact person for the press release is the composer, rather than the orchestra itself, it is not the best source. There really needs to be an independent source, such as a news report; I cannot find anything on the orchestra's web site concerning it. Kablammo (talk) 13:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
I hope my addition resolves the matter, but we should have a better source. Thank you. Kablammo (talk) 13:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Kablammo, I found a much better source on LexisNexis. It's actually a PDF of an article which was published in the Sault Star newspaper in November, 2005.Media:Edmund_Fitzgerald_the_Final_Journey_Sault_Star.pdf Can you substitute this source for the current one? It would also be nice to have a link to a free copy of the music for study. The link is http://www.sibeliusmusic.com/cgi-bin/show_score.pl?scoreid=82325

Thanks. Geoffreyapeterson (talk) 14:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you post the full url for the Sault Star article? I can't reach it through the paper's website. If it is not available online, but you have a copy, we could cite to newspaper, with date and page. If you have an image can you e-mail it to me? Thanks. Kablammo (talk) 15:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
I'll look into it. For your information, I have asked Jehochman, who has a number of edits to this article, to stop by to give a second (or third) opinion; I thought a view from an uninvolved and experienced editor would be useful.
This article could eventually be a Featured Article (although I don't plan on spearheading that effort) and it's always a good idea to find sources which would pass muster there. Kablammo (talk) 14:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid all I have is the PDF of the archived Sault Star article from LexisNexis. Is this sufficient? Also, what about having a link to the score? Thanks. Geoffreyapeterson (talk) 04:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

No "distress signals"?

The lead paragraph states that the ship

sank suddenly, without sending any distress signals

Later, though, the article talks of a number of broadcasts, including one that said the ship

was suffering a bad list, had lost her radars, and had seas washing over her decks

Do these count as "distress signal"s? If not, perhaps the initial paragraph could be amended to say that it had sent notice of trouble, but not a formal distress signal, and nothing immediately before it sank. -- Dan Griscom (talk) 16:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Although they had reported difficulties, the ship sank without sending any sort of distress signal (e.g. Mayday (distress signal), pan pan). Feel free to copy edit the initial paragraph to be more accurate. Jehochman Talk 18:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
done. --Richard (talk) 19:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

"Edmund Fitzgerald" page

I discovered that the title "Edmund Fitzgerald" is the disambig page, even though I feel that this article (the one about the ship) is the likely primary topic for the name, per WP:D. I added a talk topic to that page, if anyone has any thoughts on the matter. EJSawyer (talk) 19:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Queen of the Lakes

That honorary title goes to the longest ship on the Lakes. The Wilfred Sykes took that title away from the Carl D. Bradley when constructed in the late 1940s. The Bradley didn't lose it to the Fitzgerald like the article states, so I corrected it. In fact, the Bradley wasn't even second longest when the Fitzgerald was launched. Quite a few ships, such as the John G. Munson, Ernest T. Weir, John Sherwin, Cliff's Victory, Seaway Queen, George C. Humphrey, and all the AAA's among others were longer than the Carl D. Bradley when the Fitzgerald was launched.

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}} The coordinates need the following fixes: This isn't where the ship sank... It sank in Canadian waters

208.7.93.63 (talk) 04:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Coordinates in article are reported in the NTSB report listed at the bottom of the article. BrainMarble (talk) 23:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Rogue wave evidence

Someone should incorporate the information in this article: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/the-edmund-fitzgeralds-legend-lives-on-but-with-a-major-change/article1511191/

It says that there is evidence that a rogue wave caused the sinking, and that Lightfoot is planning to change the lyrics of the song slightly in future performances. --Ilnyckyj (talk) 18:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I recently read a credible, expert and detailed book that came to the conclusion that the most likely explanation is that the boat sank due to structural failure. In essence, a combination of three things:
  1. A huge storm
  2. A likely prior weakness (with related evidence)
  3. A hard-driving captain
Of course a rogue wave could be a 4th contributing factor (actually an aggravation of #1) and the last straw. And this could occur without losing any hatch covers. There was no citation (just a statement about the TV show) in the rogue wave + hatch covers theory, and the link provided by Ilnycky mentioned structural failure caused directly by a rogue wave (without and no mention of removal of hatch covers). I plan to tweak the wording a little accordingly, maybe a little more later if I include citations. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Steven, you reverted my tweak as being unreferenced. That's going to be an easy one to put back in because it was from the article cited by Ilnycky a few lines up. Now, the paragraph that you reverted it to IS totally unreferenced. Aside from wiki rules, I think it falsely says/implies that THE (only) rogue wave theory involves removal of the hatch covers prior to sinking. That would be in direct conflict with what's in the material referenced by Ilnycky described above.

I think that it would be both better and more fun to handle this on the talk page rather than by summary deletion. If not on the talk page, then tagging is much more appropriate than summary deletion. North8000 (talk) 12:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Steven...Thanks!

Does anybody know for sure if one of the published / televised theories included damage of the hatch covers by rogue waves (and ensuing flooding through them)? This article is the only place that I've seen that. Since there are no citations there, I had some concern that it was based only on memory from watching a TV show. I was thinking of tagging that "citation needed" but didn't want to do that if someone is pretty sure that that is one published/televised theories. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Rather than tagging it, I'm going to just to "vague up" the rogue wave theory wording to allow for other possibilities besides that particular sequence startign with hatch cover removal. I was uncomfortable with an uncited description of the rogue wave theory that says that it narrowed it to just that particular sequence that started with removal of the hatch covers. I think that tagging it would have resulted in the saem thing, or complete removal of the content which be a shame. North8000 (talk) 19:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Anybody know about the launch date change?

Launch date was changed by an IP with no edit summary. Was this a correction or vandalism? North8000 (talk) 16:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at the IP's other edits. Nothing but small acts of infantile vandalism. This is, in all likelihood, what's known as "subtle vandalism," or making a small change to an article like a date or a middle name or a place of birth in the hope that it looks legitimate enough to be kept. I usually revert this sort of thing on sight and ask the editor to explain himself, which I have done. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

One of many wrecks

The original text stated the Bradley vanished - as did other ships - in fact the Bradley did not vanish as is evidenced in the text itself and the link to the Bradley. So I changed it to perished - hope noone minds that small edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.64.242.186 (talk) 12:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


Today's Vandalism

I think 14 vandalisms by the same person in one day. I reported this and got a 55 hour block on that range of IP addresses. North8000 (talk) 22:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I am archiving this early because it was just by me and no longer relevant / of interest. North8000 (talk) 15:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


What a lot of excellent additions by wpwatchdog

What a lot of excellent additions by wpwatchdog! North8000 (talk) 19:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. I have quite a few credible books on the Fitzgerald. I plan to add more citations and fact clarifications to the article--Wpwatchdog (talk) 18:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Section changes

  1. I plan to delete the reference section from the talk page. Those are from a 1 year old post. It's kind of unusual to not have new posts at the bottom, If you disagree, please feel free to revert me and/or discuss.
  2. This article really doesn't have a named section for the biggest question: "(Theories on) Why did she sink?". Not that we should move other related material into this section (such as the known sequence of events before the sinking), for that would swallow half of the article. But the "Accident Report and controversy" section really is this section except mis-named. I'm renaming the section to "Theories on the cause of her sinking"; if you disagree, feel free to revert me and/or discuss. North8000 (talk) 19:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Further weakening of the documentary-based paragraph and theory.

This paragraph and theory was always a little weak. Seems like someone just wrote from memory after seeing the documentary, and the only ref. was an article talking about it, and which did not have/support the material in the paragraph. In my July 2010 posts I expressed my misgivings, but decided to just "vague up" the wording to adapt to this rather than tagging it. Also, as recounted from the documentary, it seems weak...for somebody to hypothesize at this level of detail about the wave train and the second by second account on how it interacted with the boat. Since rogue waves are a transient event that comes and goes in tens of seconds, even any note by the other boat about seeing a couple of big waves does not really support this in even the vague OR universe. . I was was not able to find any other ref about the documentary. Now, as wpwatchdog has noted when removing the reference, the reference has been further weakened. He/she indicated it was dead, although it appears it appears to be live but may require paying to see. As an aside, this does not preclude it as a reference....it should probably be retained. But either way,the documentary based paragraph has gone from weak to even weaker. What do y'all think? North8000 (talk) 03:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)North8000 (talk) 10:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree the paragraph has big problems. The "three sister wave" theory as a cause of sinking of the Fitzgerald is well documented by many credible sources. In the near future, I plan to make the corrections in the article about this backed up with good citations.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 12:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I didn't know that. I've read three books on this and there was no mention of it, but there are a lot more sources out there. North8000 (talk) 18:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


Try for Featured Article November 10, 2011?

What do you think? On the anniversary of her sinking. I think that such an effort would be aided by the fact this is a very interesting and famous topic. North8000 (talk) 21:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I could see why it failed as a featured article because it still needed a lot of work but it is a topic known worldwide. I think it could easily be ready by next November 10. I've never been involved in the nomination of a featured article. I'd be glad to help.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 20:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Me neither, which is why I brought it up a year ahead of time. North8000 (talk) 13:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
It looks like the sequences is
  1. Good Article
  2. Featured Article
  3. Featured Article of the day

Not sure "Good Article" is officially required first, but I think it's that way whether official or not. Before we put in for that I'm suggesting that we do a self-review of the article first. Rather that tagging stuff, make a tougher "self-review" list on the talk page. Moving the discussion to below. North8000 (talk) 14:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

NPOV Coast Guard Comments in the "Search" section

"finally convince" and "finally took seriously" seems to imply some incompetence on behalf of the Coast Guard that is not in any WP:RS. Suggest rewording of this section. Rapier (talk) 21:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Good point to look into that. (Actually it's in the "Final voyage and wreck" rather than "Search" section). It is cited. If the cite shows that he had difficulty convincing the Coast Guard, then the current wording might be OK. North8000 (talk) 21:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree that it is NPOV and it needs a rewrite. It is well documented how many times Cooper contacted the Coast Guard before they started search efforts. People can draw their own conclusions. I recall reading that the Coast Guard was concentrating on a search for a 16-foot outboard but so far I haven't located the source. Some commercial fishermen were stranded out in Whitefish Bay in that storm and survived.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 22:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The Rogue Wave Theory

I think that it is quite plausible that (a) rogue wave(s) finished her off. However, I think that there are big problems with the unsourced sentence: "Reports show three large rogue waves were detected, two of which were reported by the Anderson." Both with respect to what it says, and also what it implies. Rogue waves are transient an localized events. And its quite believable, and arguably relevant that a ship miles away saw two big waves. But what/where is the report of three large rogue waves about, and, in that context, the asserted relevance here? (e.g. were they near the Edmund Fitzgerald, or were they indicative that conditions for formation of rogue waves existed then. Does anybody know of the/a source for this statement and what it says? North8000 (talk) 13:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

This theory is discussed in quite a few Fitzgerald books. The "three sisters waves" phenomenon is well known among Lake Superior commercial fishermen. I can cite this section soon. Most of the article needed citations so it is going to take some work. If you can read them, Wolff's section on the Fitzgerald in "Lake Superior Shipwrecks" and Bishop's "The Night the Fitz Went Down" are excellent sources. Thompson's "Graveyard of the Lakes" gives good insight from a mariner's perspective.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 16:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I think that it is a good and sourceable theory. I was just questioning the "three large rogue waves were detected" statement. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Delete life ring hoax?

The life ring alleged to be from the Fitzgerald in 2007 was a hoax. How about deleting it from the memorial section of the article?--Wpwatchdog (talk) 22:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Or cover it as the "life ring hoax" ? North8000 (talk) 00:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Is it correct as written, or is even the stuff in the article wrong?
The last sentence in the article about the life ring is misleading. The life ring was a hoax, not a memorial. When asked about the life ring, historian Stonehouse said in one of the news articles, "I smell a rat."--Wpwatchdog (talk) 20:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
What is your opinion.....cover it as a hoax, or take it out completely? North8000 (talk) 20:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Opinion: Cover it as a hoax, as the story was notable. It only needs a few lines though, as per WP:UNDUE Rapier (talk) 06:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
That's my opinion too. Also may keep it from getting re-added later as fact. North8000 (talk) 11:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I revised the text as suggested above with new citations.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 13:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This stage of the review is completed. All open items in it have been resolved. Due to major changes in section headings on 12/21/10, the title structure in this is no longer current, and so no longer suitable for additional work. I started a new new self-review section #2. North8000 (talk) 13:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Self-review list #1 prior to submission for good article

(Editable section - please feel free to edit)

As background, see discussion in above "Try for Featured Article November 10, 2011?" section. Let's be tough on ourselves here. The following goes mostly going by same sections as the article

Lead

"The sinking of the Edmund Fitzgerald is the most famous disaster in the history of Great Lakes shipping." is quite a superlative statement, unsourced. We should probably either get a site for it, or or soften the wording up a bit. North8000 (talk) 02:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I have been looking for a source for that statement. I recently added this sentence to the search section so the statement was included in body of the article to match the lead:

The sinking of the Edmund Fitzgerald is the most famous disaster in the history of Great Lakes shipping, made legendary by Gordon Lightfoot's popular ballad, the "Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald".[3]

I think the statement is actually accurate. I'll add another source if I happen across one.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 12:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I absolutely agree that it is accurate. I was just putting it under a tougher "lens", in the spirit of this overall review. North8000 (talk) 15:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I added the word "arguably" to the statement and another citation.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 15:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Cool! I feel guilty......me making comments, and you doing the real work.  :-) North8000 (talk) 15:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
If you keep on scrutinizing with that tougher lens, we will make our goal.Wpwatchdog (talk) 17:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I'll bet we're going to need a cite on this statement. If we don't find one, how bout changing it to "one of the most famous" which puts the statement in the category of "Paris is the capital of France" North8000 21:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I think that it it certainly is the most famous shipwreck on the great lakes. However, that statement just looks like one that is going to need a cite. I'll change it to "one of the most famous", and then we can put "most famous" back in when we find a site. Please feel free to revert me if you think otherwise.
Done. Its in two places, the other is the "Search" section. Againk I'd like to put "most famous" back in when we find a cite. I think that this is resolved. North8000 21:34, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Are you kidding? A quick Google search found several sources to back up the "most famous" assertion.Asher196 (talk) 22:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree that it is the most famous. Just to explain, we are trying to put ourselves through the ringer here in order to successfully submit the article for GA, then FA, then article of the day status. Maybe we should just put it back in with no source. Or, could you help us find a source to put it back in? Sincerely, North8000 22:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Resolved. North8000 19:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

On another note, I think that the lead will need a couple more sentence in it recapping the significant new areas of the article. I'd be happy to work on that. North8000 21:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Nice work on the lead, North8000.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 22:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I think that this is resolved. North8000 21:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Info Box

Clarify what "height" and "depth" mean ?

When comparing other info boxes, these terms are commonly used without clarification. Wikipedia defines depth as follows: *Ships - Measuring ships section. Do you think we should change the terms in the info box?--Wpwatchdog (talk) 18:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
The article that you pointed me to provides the definition of depth but not height. If even after investigating, even you and I don't know the meaning of the "height" statement, then we should probably do something with it. Not sure what. Maybe find clearer/define info, maybe delete. We should also add draft? North8000 (talk) 11:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Page 7 of the NTSB Marine Accident Report says, "The Fitzgerald was a conventional "straightdecker" Great Lakes bulk cargo vessel. It was 729 feet long, 75 feet in breadth, 39 feet in depth, 13,632 gross tons, and 8,686 net tons." Page 2 of the Coast Guard Casualty Report says, "Length (oa): 729 ft; Breath: 75 ft; Depth: 39 ft." I think it would be safe to use these dimensions and eliminate height which doesn't make sense listed next to depth.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 14:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Cool. I took depth out. North8000 (talk) 14:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Construction

History

-Final Voyage and wreck

It describes a prediction "the storm" would pass south, without ever saying there was a storm. Need to first say that a storm was present or predicted. North8000 (talk) 16:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I changed words "the" to "a" in the sentence. Does that fix it?--Wpwatchdog (talk) 17:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Perfect! North8000 (talk) 18:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Someone added a "cite needed" to the last sentence in this section. Looks like a good idea North8000 12:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Two citations added.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 14:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Cool, this is resolved. North8000 15:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

-Search

-Legal settlement

Discovery and Underwater Surveys

1994 Shannon Dive

The sentence "He was the only Fitzgerald explorer to report the discovery of a crew member wearing a life jacket lying alongside the bow of the ship," is ambiguous. Was he the only explorer to to report seeing a crew member body, or the only one to see "crew member wearing a life jacket lying alongside the bow of the ship". If the former statement is that case, that would be a useful statement to (clearly) make. North8000 (talk) 17:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

As you probably know, Shannon wasn't in the submersible when the body was discovered but he was the expedition leader. I tried editing the text for more clarity. You have a good eye. Please don't hesitate to fix my errors.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 19:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I didn't know / missed that. But the change still doesn't provide the suggested clarification. Presuming that they were the only ones to find a crewman (period) I'll edit it accordingly. Please don't hesitate to revert me if I am wrong. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
It is done. Again, feel free to change it. North8000 (talk) 20:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Good fix, now it is really clear. What did you want to do about the info box question?--Wpwatchdog (talk) 20:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

1995 Macinnis Dive

Someone added a "citation needed" tag on the last sentence in this section. IMHO, no glaring issue there, but looks like a good idea. North8000 12:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Citation added with text revision.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 14:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

1995 Tysall-Zee Dive

Clarify: did the Fitzgerald dive set those records? North8000 (talk) 17:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Please check out my revision. Please revise further if needed.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 17:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Looks great. North8000 (talk) 18:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

2002 GLSHS side-scan sonar survey

Said the did an unlicensed side-scan survey. Hard to imagine (as this implies) that a licenses is need for a sonar survey. But then it says that they admitted to an unlicensed dive which is what I assume the "unlicensed" topic is really about? North8000 (talk) 17:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

See the next subsection, "Restrictions on dives to Fitzgerald". It explains that the Ontario Heritage Act requires a license to conduct sonar surveys of shipwrecks. There is a link to the Act. (I think the rationale is that salvagers can use sonar scanning to troll for loot from shipwrecks.) Do you think the GLSHS side-scan subsection needs something added about the law that regulates sonar surveys of the Fitzgerald?--Wpwatchdog (talk) 23:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I think that it is fine as is. Long story short, I was in error to question this. North8000 (talk) 11:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Theories on the cause of her sinking

-Topside damage

Needs a bit more explanation. What type of top side damage, and how did it cause sinking.

Agree - will add more but may take awhile to gather info from more than one source.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 18:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I think that this is now resolved. North8000 (talk) 11:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

-Shoaling

I can't find a source for the below sentences, including the claim that it is from Stonehouse's book. He talks about mud on the wreck but I am almost finished rereading his book and I haven't run across the statement that Fitzgerald has settled in mud up to its load marks. How about deleting the following: If the hull had indeed been breached, it would be difficult to prove. Fitzgerald has settled in mud up to its load marks, making it impossible to inspect for damage.Wpwatchdog (talk) 18:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I read three books on it and don't remember that either...., but I could have forgotten. Still it has words in it that make it look like it started from somewhere, even if mis-quoted. But it doesn't make much sense. Very rough numbers, ~27% of the ship is gone, (shatterred) on ~35% of the ship the bottom is visible (due to being upside down) and on ~35% the bottom is hidden is hidden due to settling in the mud. So, "settling to the load line" is only relevant to ~35% of the ship. North8000 (talk) 20:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
If the article on a Ship's load line is correct, the load line is amidships and that part of the ship is gone so the statement can't be accurate unless it was meant as an estimate.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 21:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I think whoever wrote whatever this sentence was derived from meant "the waterline when the ship is loaded to it's official load line" But either way this reinforces that this sentence is not good as is. We should probably either mentally or actually tag it. Later delete it if we can't find anything supporting that statement. North8000 (talk) 22:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I say let's tag it for now.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 01:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
I tagged it. North8000 (talk) 01:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
I took out the Stonehouse citation in front of the tag until it can be substantiated.Wpwatchdog (talk) 01:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
It also looks a little weird, as the very next paragraph talks about inspection of the hull for evidence of shoaling. (Of course, only the stern portion)

I removed the citation tag, added a quote from the Coast Guard investigation, and moved sentences around. Please check whether it makes more sense now.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 16:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. North8000 (talk) 15:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

-Flooding of cargo hold from ineffective hatch closures or collapsed hatch covers

Regarding: "advanced design of the hatch covers and closings.......without a single vessel loss in almost 40 years of use" "Advanced design" seems to conflict with "has been used for 40 years" North8000 (talk) 12:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Please see the addition to the quote that should clear up the conflict.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 23:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
That clears it up, that this is a quote which the article is covering. North8000 (talk) 11:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Structural Failure

Says that the Homer is offered as evidence of structural failure, but never says how so. (no mention of any structural problems or incidents with the Homer) North8000 (talk) 17:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I revised it. Please suggest or revise as you think best.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 20:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Perfect. As always, what great work you are doing! North8000 (talk) 22:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

In that new last paragraph, I'm assuming he said or meant hull design in a straightjacket. Either way suggest double checking, if only to be sure the quote is accurate.

I'm 99.9% sure the internal link to "Lift to drag" (aviation term) is wrong and I plan to remove. North8000 15:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC) I took it out, but maybe even the term L/D is the wrong one? Seems like the common abbreviation for slenderness ration is SLR or DLR. North8000 15:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I added two more citations to the article in reference to the L/D ratio. The Fitzgerald naval architect specifically used that term in his book. I don't know anything about engineering or architecture but it looks to me like "lift to drag" ratios do apply to naval/maritime architecture. The Wikipedia article on L/D ratio probably needs expanded.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 16:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
So that clears it up that he did say L/D. My background is pretty heavy in engineering and physics and (long story short) I'd bet the farm that this is not a "lift to drag" situation. Possibly it's Length-to-Draft, or Length-To-Diameter. I did some exploring and the "slenderness ratio" is widely used, but all references are to those other abbreviations. Either way, as long as we don't link to the Lift/Drag article, I'd consider this to be resolved. North8000 17:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
BTW, I went back and checked Ramsey's "straight jacket" quote and you were correct. He used the phrase about the hull design. I added the word "design". Thank you once again for your sharp eye.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 17:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Cool. As always I feel guilty about commenting while you do all of the real work. So, all open items here are resolved. North8000 17:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Contributing Factors to Her Sinking

Weather Forecasting

Failure to limit operation of vessels in sea states

"full storm" doesn't sound like one of the official categories. Could it possibly be "full gale" ? North8000 (talk) 13:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

You are correct. I deleted the word "full".--Wpwatchdog (talk) 15:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Resolved North8000 (talk) 16:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Complacency

Between being a bit of a "reach" out of what is germane to the article, and the unexplored implication that Reagan made the decision to cut, this might look POVish. Shorten the sentence to remove the Reagan part? North8000 15:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

It might be POV. It was author Thompson's statement. Since the Coast Guard is part of Homeland Security now, their budget most likely improved so the statement may no longer apply. Please fix it it as you think best.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 18:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I shortened it to address the issue that I brought up, and changed to past tense wording to put it in the right time context. Also put "they said" wording in to clarify that this is something that someone said rather than a statement of fact. Do you know who said those things? I think we should put that in there (if possible) instead of the first "they" North8000 19:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Looking at the source, I don't know how I even came up with the word "they" and I agree it needs changed. It was Mark Thompson's statement. You can read it at Graveyard of the Lakes, p. 367. I was trying to balance the Coast Guard's limited rescue ability with the fact that they had limited funding. I changed the wording but please do edit it further or delete it if you think that is best. You attention is definitely improving the article.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 20:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I think that I made up the "they" as a temporary measure. Looks good! I think that this is resolved. North8000 21:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Memorials

One of Many Wrecks (this section is now eliminated)

I'm guessing that "6,000 shipwrecks occurring between 1878 and 1897" maybe should be between 1878 and 1997 North8000 (talk) 13:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Those are the correct years. The sources are Mark Thompson's Graveyard of the Lakes and J.B. Mansfield's 1899 History of the Great Lakes. I've been wondering why the "One of many wrecks" section is even in the article. I've checked numerous Wikipedia articles of the more famous shipwrecks and none of them have a qualifying section pertaining to their notoriety. I think the information in this section would more appropriate in the List of shipwrecks - Great Lakes section.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 14:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Whew.....6,000 shipwrecks in 21 years!
I think that you're right...we should probably delete the entire section. Make sure there are pointers to elsewhere for such info. Maybe the one sentence about 240 wrecks near Whitefish Point might be somewhat relevant, but that's just one sentence, not a section. North8000 (talk) 14:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
I moved most of the text to List of shipwrecks - Great Lakes section, moved the sentence about the Whitefish Point wrecks to the end of the "Search" section of the article where it seemed to fit best, and changed the "See also" section to include a link to the Great Lakes shipwreck list.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 15:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Cool! North8000 (talk) 16:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Musical Tributes, Theater & Television (not a current section name)

There are probably dozens if not hundreds of possible inclusions here. So the question of vetting for purposes of WP:undue and article quality arises. One recent addition was put into and dropped from two places, including "see also" In my opinion, the others are pretty well vetted. In all cases, either the writer, performer or TV show has an article in Wikipedia with an internal link to it. WP:notability is probably a good rule-of-thumb for this, and for those is probably established. North8000 (talk) 15:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

So, this is done. North8000 (talk) 00:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Just as a thought, I've seen a production of Ten November. I believe I even have a copy of the script somewhere in my mess. I think it's inaccurate to call this a "musical tribute" or even a "musical" as the article does now. It's more of a play with music. This distinction may be lost on some, but I'll do my best. This is not a production in which the actors playing the parts begin to sing as part of their performances in a way that develops their characters and advances the plot. It's almost more a series of vignettes, between which a completely separate group of singers take the stage and perform some songs. I really think this ought to be changed and will have a whack at it sometime in the next day or so. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Just saw this note today...sorry. Feel free to change, delete or whatever you feel is best. North8000 21:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Resolved. It's ow under theater. North8000 18:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Musical Tributes

Someone added a "citation needed" tag on the last sentence(presumably, sentences) in the musical section. I'll see if I can write the person who put that in. (they modified it recently) See if they can cite it; otherwise we should take it out. North8000 12:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I found the most recent editor and asked them on their talk page. North8000 14:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
They adding sourcing to most of it, excluding one sentence. The fact in that one sentence was noticeably absent from the sourcing on that topic. I removed it. Resolved. North8000 17:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Theater
Television

Someone added two "citation needed" tags, each at the end of one of the two paragraphs, each presumably applying to the entire paragraph. These sections were put in a long time ago. Nobody active in the article now seems to be active in the area of television. If nobody sources these, I plan to take out the entire section. North8000 12:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Check out this link: Paul Gross, musician and scroll down to "32 Down on the Robert Mackensie".--Wpwatchdog (talk) 17:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Great, it covered both. I put it in as a reference. Resolved. North8000 18:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Commercialization

See Also

SS Gothenburg and SS Winfield Scott are WP:GA. Their "see also" sections do not list individual ships or shipwrecks although they do include "List of shipwrecks". How about deleting individual ships or shipwrecks from the "see also" section?--Wpwatchdog (talk) 21:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. North8000 (talk) 20:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
This is done. North8000 (talk) 11:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Further Reading

How about deleting Schumacher, Bishop, Hemming, and Stonehouse's books from this section since the same books are already in the reference section?--Wpwatchdog (talk) 19:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. I'll do it so that you don't wear out your fingers! (again, what a lot a great work you are doing!) North8000 (talk) 19:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
This is done North8000 (talk) 14:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Theatre Daedalus' world premier of 29 Bells, a play set around the sinking of the Edmund Fitzgerald Is this link for promotional purposes? This was added by a new user whose first and only Wikipedia contributions were today about the play, 29 Bells.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 00:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Resolved - removed. Even if not for promotional purposes, I think that for both article quality and wp:undue purpose, we have to vet these. Should probably do a review of the others. At first glance. in all of the others, either the writer, performer or the TV show have an article in Wikipedia and so presumably have established notability. North8000 (talk) 11:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Missing sections, images, drawings

North8000 (talk) 14:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Images of the Fitzgerald that are in the public domain are few and far between. Stonehouse's book has quite a few photos credited to the Coast Guard that can likely be obtained. The image posted by Gobonobo is a nice addition but I'm not sure that it meets the public domain requirements.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 14:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Seems to have been checked out.North8000 (talk) 16:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


- - End of Editable "Self Review" Section - - I just finished a slow read of the entire article, and made comments wherever I saw something. Probably my "final" one unless/until some other need arises. North8000 (talk) 17:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC) North8000 19:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Newest play addition

Two issues undue weight/non-notability. Doubly so considering the amount of text. Also it a play about somebody writing a play about Edmund Fitzgerald. North8000 (talk) 22:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. And what about the link to the author? It looks like a promotion since the play is still running. If it stays, it needs fixed.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 23:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
I think the whole thing comes out. It's a very new play by a non-notable playwright. The section does more to promote the production than it does to inform the reader, which is probably its intent. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I boldly deleted it. I just don't see letting that kind of thing hang around for a couple of weeks until the play closes. That kind of spamming just yanks my chain. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Good.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 00:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I think that you did the right thing. North8000 (talk) 01:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I just got a message on my talk page from the editor who added the material. He seems to have been acting in good faith, which I accept. However, I still don't think the play has gained enough notice to warrant mention here. Now I just have to find a way to get my foot out of my mouth. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, maybe your wording was a little rough, but none of us are perfect. And, again, I think that your action was correct. You might just say that.  :-) North8000 (talk) 01:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


Construction site dispute

According to the credible sources, the Fitzgerald was built in River Rouge. For starters, see page 4 of 40th Anniversary Launch of the SS Edmund Fitzgerald and page 13 of The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald by Frederick Stonehouse.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 01:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I changed it back to River Rouge. Slightsmile (talk) 01:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the quick fix.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 02:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Created a page for manual archiving

I created a page for manual archiving. Maybe just for really old stuff. North8000 (talk) 15:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Good idea.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 15:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ MacInnis, Dr. Joseph (1998). Fitzgerald's Storm:The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald, p. 101, Thunder Bay Press, Berkely, CA, U.S.A. ISBN 1-882376-53-6.
  2. ^ Thompson, Mark L. (2000). "Graveyard of the Lakes". Google Books; Original Wayne State University Press, Detroit. Retrieved 2009-04-16. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help), 326.
  3. ^ "Famous Shipwrecks Worldwide". Aqua Explorers Inc. Retrieved 2010-11-12. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SS_Edmund_Fitzgerald/Archive_1&oldid=1137168660"