Jump to content

Talk:SS Edmund Fitzgerald/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Submit for GA (Good Article) Review?

Per our previous discussion, shall I now submit this for GA (Good Article) Review? It looks like this would be step one of three towards trying to get this to be the article of the day for next November 10th. (2011) I think that due to the interest level, interesting content, notability, and importance of the date, if we achieve the necessary quality level, our chances would be good for article of the day on a November 10th, hopefully November 10th 2011. North8000 (talk) 16:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I still plan on additions to the article over the next few weeks. I am waiting for more books to arrive. Do you think this will affect the GA review?--Wpwatchdog (talk) 16:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I think it probably good enough right now, but it's also fine to wait. How 'bout let's say we'll submit it three weeks from now....December 20th? North8000 (talk) 16:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
OK, that sounds good.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 16:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
It would be nice to get this past WP:FAC next year in time for it to run on the home page in November. Jehochman Talk 01:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
OK, it's the 20th, so here goes. But please continue to work on the article. North8000 12:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Notes to GA reviewers

As most know, the sinking of the Edmund Fitzgerald is what made it famous. It sank on November 10th, and our goal is to have this become the article of the day on November 10th 2011. We have tried to put ourselves "through the ringer" to get it shape for submission to become a Good Article. Much of the recent self-review occurred in the talk page section "Self review list prior to submission for good article" which is organized by article sections. Anything that I've done here pales in comparison to the immense amount of excellent work (including finding, absorbing and using sourcing) that Wpwatchdog has been doing on this article. Sincerely, North8000 12:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Too many sections?

I removed subsections from the "Discovery and underwater surveys", "Theories on the cause of sinking", and "Contributing factors to sinking" per a review comment on Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Ships. Other featured articles on ships are not subdivided to the extent of the Fitzgerald article. I didn't change the subdivisions of the "Memorial" section because I didn't work on it but I think it could have subsections removed also.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 18:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I was also going to make the "too many sections" comment, but wasn't sure. But whew, I think that took about 20 sections out in one stroke. And now the sections look huge. IMHO ideal would probably be to split the big current sections into 2-3 sections. But I don't know how to do that. 18:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to subdivide it either. When comparing other featured articles, the long sections are broken up with images.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 18:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
What do you think about (if possible) reverting your deletion of sections, and then start combining them on a smaller scale? North8000 20:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
I'll just try to do it before it's too late. North8000 21:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Done. I'm afraid I took out your edit that you did with the one section heading deletions. We'll have to get that back. Now, to start combining. North8000 21:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
OK. How about combining "1975 discovery" and "1976 CURV-III survey" as one subsection with a title something like "Navy and Coast Guard surveys"? And the 1994 MacInnis dive and 1995 MacInnis dive into "1994 and 1995 MacInnis dives"?--Wpwatchdog (talk) 21:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Just saw the revised subsections - it works for me.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 21:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I just finished partial recombining of sections. The net effect is 13 less sections & subsections (32 vs. 45) compared to two days ago. I couldn't figure what your sentence edit was that you included in your 12/21 18:05 edit (which I reverted) Do you think that you could put it back in? North8000 21:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm thinking that we have a lot more to write about than a typical ship article. Most importantly, a famous and important sinking from unknown causes. This means tributes, surveys, theories, investigations, radio/television/musical tributes and even a triggered review of great lakes shipping practices. So, that needs extra content and sections. North8000 21:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Gordon Lightfoot's ballad has a lot to do with the Fitzgerald's fame. The number of books and articles and the number of dives generated a lot of information. She is often called the Titanic of the Great Lakes although I don't think that is mentioned in the article. I have actually worked on another section about the changes in Great Lakes shipping practice in response to the Fitzgerald sinking that I haven't added to the article.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 00:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Self-Review #2 and work in response to reviewers comments

Closed out the previous section because all items in it were resolved, and now the section names etc. have changed. North8000 19:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Reference Section(s) organization

Just clarifying/understanding...is where we're heading that each cite would have a place in the "notes" section with a page # and brief name of the reference, and then the "reference" section would have the complete info on the reference section? So, if the XYZ book is cited 5 times, it will have 5 brief entries in the "notes" section, and one full entry in the "references" section? 17:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

That method is used a number of other articles. Racepacket (talk) 20:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Sounds good. I was looking to confirm/clarify. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Reference question

According to WP:REFB, You Tube is usually not an acceptable reference. A reference in the Memorial section uses You Tube as a reference for this sentence:

The ships bell was replaced with a replica bell engraved with the names of the 29 sailors who lost their lives.

Although the You Tube video has accurate information for 2007 and gives a good summary, how about using Stonehouse's book as a reference instead? (by WPWatchdog)

WPWatchdog, we're 100% on the same page, working for the same goal, and you do excellent work. Although I enjoy the conversation, you don't even have to ask, just make changes you see fit.

I just thought that the "replica bell" item is well suited for the memorials section, and the video is where I found it and seemed to be done in a scholarly manner, and not made (just for) YouTube. But the change that you describe would be for the better. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I like the video too. Let's leave it and see what happens.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 20:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
We'll probably have to look at reference formatting before we go fo FA. For this that might include seeking / adding more info on who made the video. There is a lot of serious/scholarly stuff which is on YouTube; it's just the portal. North8000 (talk) 20:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
It looks like we will have to redo all of the referencing as suggested in the above review. Maybe something like today's FA?--Wpwatchdog (talk) 21:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
We'll probably need that separation plus work on some of the formatting. Possibly use cite templates. North8000 (talk) 03:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Reference formatting cleanup

I've peeked at this article recently. Being a native of the UP, one grows up just knowing this whole story, especially when Gordon Lightfoot comes to town every so many years. I'd like to offer a few suggestions regarding references and formatting, especially if you have the goal to take this to FAC.

  1. My biggest suggestion is to convert the ISO-style dates in the references over to a more natural format. You have some magazine/journal articles with publication dates that are Month–Month Year that don't convert well to ISO-style. The date formats will need to be consistent before you hit FAC, or someone will comment on that issue.
  2. Another thing, Google Books doesn't publish anything. It's nice if you provide a convenience link to a copy of a source hosted on Google Books, but the source's publisher doesn't change just because of that fact.
  3. I see some footnotes that contain the names of newspapers. These need to be in italics. Use the work, not publisher parameter of a {{cite news}} template. The publisher would be the company that owns and publishes the paper.
  4. To follow up on that, keep the papers' names consistent. Detroit News or The Detroit News but not both, for instance.
  5. Keep author names consistently in the same format. (Last, First is the most common.)
  6. If the source is hosted online, and it is in PDF format, use |format=PDF in the template. Not every browser will display that little PDF icon, and a reader should be warned in case he can't open PDFs.
  7. Don't use external links to link to a publisher's name. If they don't have a Wikipedia article, don't link them.
  8. When you get closer to "finalizing" the article, scan through your footnotes. Remove extra wikilinks so that only the first Detroit News entry has the paper's name wikilinked. That will cut down on WP:OVERLINK issues before mentioned at FAC.
  9. The {{cite journal}} template has parameters for volume and issue. Use them on journal/magazine articles for consistent formatting.
  10. More than just in the references, but make sure that all usages of the ship's name are properly formatted. "SS" doesn't have periods and Edmund Fitzgerald should always be in italics. If the name appears in a title that would be in italics, it gets flipped to roman (plain) text to differentiate it from the rest of the italicized title. Even if the title of a source uses periods, you're free to omit them to match the rest of the MoS style guide.
  11. Another minor change that should be made is to render titles of articles and works in Title Case. Such minor changes are permissible and actually required by the MoS. (Not everyone even knows that the MoS requires titles in Title Case, but it does.)
  12. Really evaluate just how reliable a source is. I'm seeing sources I'd question, like a YouTube link, and a website called BoatNerd. If a source isn't an article from a reputable newspaper or magazine, and it isn't a book published by a reputable publisher, be prepared to defend the source or replace it. A future FA should start as early as possible using the highest-quality sources possible. The last thing you'd want to do is gut information out of the article because you can't find a replacement source in the time allotted for the FAC.
  13. The last thing that comes to mind is completeness. Try to make sure that every source given includes as much information as possible. Authors, titles, publishers, dates, locations, page numbers, volume and issue numbers. As a general rule, I don't include the publishing company for newspapers unless it's a very obscure paper. (I will include |agency=Associated Press if the paper ran an AP newswire article though.) If the newspaper doesn't include its location in the title, I use the |location= parameter in the templates to provide it. (USA Today doesn't need it's Virginia-based location.)

All of these suggestions apply equally to the Notes, References and Further Reading sections. When an article is at FAC, if it has issues with the sources, either in terms of reliability or formatting, and those issues are being discussed, it can scare other reviewers away. These can be the easiest issues to resolve in advance. The biggest thing in my comments above is consistency. The second is to keep the visual clutter down by minimizing the amount of blue (links) beyond that which is necessary. Imzadi 1979 → 10:15, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much for all of that feedback and all of those tips!!!!
As the guy who put in the YouTube ref, I thought I would explain myself. It seemed like a scholarly short film that just happened to be on You Tube. And so far the only source found on having put the engraved replica replacement bell on the ship. That was kind of a hurried moment, didn't see credits etc. on the film, was planning to go back for either a different source, or to list the source as the film itself rather than you tube.
Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Imzadi, thank you for all the information. This is a learning process. We will work on the cleanup.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 21:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
WPwatchdog found and put in a better cite for the replacement bell, and I deleted the Youtube one. But I'm getting ready to put in a citation from Twitter. :-) North8000 (talk) 22:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree that boatnerd.com may not be a reliable source. However, you can track down the Cleveland Plain Dealer article that boatnerd.com references and use that in footnote 10. Racepacket (talk) 02:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
The Marine Historical Society of Detroit recognizes boatnerd/Great Lakes & Seaway Shipping as a reliable source. The Marine Historical Society of Detroit website has numerous links to the boatnerd website. I think the shipping industry gives financial support to both nonprofit groups --Wpwatchdog (talk) 17:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Record of good article review and related work

This achieved Good Article status January 2011. A record of the review and work during the review is at: Talk:SS_Edmund_Fitzgerald/GA1. North8000 . (talk) 15:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Would you object to us retaining the transclusion on the talk page rather than just this notice? Racepacket (talk) 06:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
IMHO: It's pretty huge. I was trying to make room for the next stage of work. But now that you mention it, it would be good to have it transcluded here for at least several months. But being so huge it's hard to imagine it staying here for ever. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I "re-transcluded" it. Did I just invent a new word?  :-) North8000 (talk) 13:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Just read wp:mos and I think we has some internal links that we shouldn't, especially to everyday wors where they will not be useful to the reader. I plan to take a few of those out. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Good plan.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 03:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Record of Capitalization Check/Review

Includes references where they occur in the code. North8000 (talk) 16:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Main photo info completed. Article code through "surveys" section completed. North8000 (talk) 03:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

North8000 (talk) 16:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC) Through "restrictions..." section North8000 (talk) 22:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Through "Breaking apart" section North8000 (talk) 23:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Through "Flooding of cargo hold....." section North8000 (talk) 00:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Through "Shoaling" section North8000 (talk) 01:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Through "Structural Failure" section North8000 (talk) 18:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Through "Top side damage" North8000 (talk) 15:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Through "Inaccurate navigational charts" North8000 (talk) 15:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Through "lack of instrumentation" North8000 (talk) 16:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Through "Complacency" North8000 (talk) 17:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Through "Changes to...." North8000 (talk) 17:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Through "Commercialization" North8000 (talk) 02:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Through "See also" North8000 (talk) 13:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Through end of article. North8000 (talk) 13:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Done North8000 (talk) 13:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion / Exclusion of bands, songs, plays, performances

Repeating my old post on this:

"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)"

Since this could go to hundreds of songs, bands, plays etc. (I noticed a new addition) I'd like to propose that we use the as above as our standard for inclusion. I hate to get a little tough, but this is a pretty lax standard. I had a movie and a video that I put into the USS Missouri article, each of which was seen by 100.000,000 + people removed (at least temporarily:-)) so again, the above is a pretty lax standard in comparison to that. North8000 (talk) 23:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

This seems like a good solution for now.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 23:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
This is the kind of thing that's hard to find clear guidance about in guidelines and policies. As a technical matter, WP:NOTABILITY applies only to the existence of articles, not what's included in them. The policy relevant to that is WP:UNDUE which is a section of WP:NPOV. Some non-notable events are so non-notable that mentioning them at all gives them undue weight. I don't say any of this to be disrespectful to anyone who has written a song or a poem or a play or anything else about the Fitz, but there has to be some standard for inclusion. Otherwise every unsigned garage band that writes a tune about the boat will be fighting to spam it into this article. Insisting that the writer or performer or show has a Wikipedia article seems a sensible standard for inclusion to me. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I wanted to add something like what you said: ...we don't mean any of this to be disrespectful to anyone who has written a song or a poem or a play or anything else about the Fitz, but there has to be some standard for inclusion. Doubly so because we're preparing to go through and will be going through a very tough FA review process. North8000 (talk) 02:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
So, if I understand everyone's combined policy comments correctly, to have the song "Shove On Fitzgerald" posted on the SS Edmund Fitzgerald site, the references for the posting will have to have an internal link to either the writer, performer or TV show that has an article already in Wikipedia? Let me know if I understand correctly. That seems like a tough standard for what would be otherwise legitamate entries to the SS Edmund Fitzgerald article. WOLFF
Hello Wolff. If you want to see a tough standard, look here Talk:USS Missouri (BB-63)#Removal of media section I put in one sentence on a video that was filmed on and showcased the ship, where the song, video and artist have Wikipedia articles, seen by 100,000,000 plus people was pulled from the ship article. Also a movie seen by 100,000,000+ people where the ship was the centerpiece of and setting of the plot, some film of the ship was in the movie, and where the movie and several of the actors in it have Wikipedia articles was also pulled from the ship article. As you can see from the above , we're not exactly sure what to do, but do know that we have to draw the line somewhere and to us this does not seem like a tough standard. North8000 (talk) 10:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Additional self-review items starting 1/9/11

Found crew member

In "surveys" perhaps woudl should double check the refs on "Shannon's group discovered a crew member wearing a life jacket lying alongside the bow of the ship" The question arises that one would think that someone who is not pinned down and is wearing a lifejacket would float. North8000 (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I recall hearing or seeing the explanation that the depth and pressure of the wreck and the absorption of water in the cork panels would prevent a body from floating to the surface. I'm not sure if I have a source for this explanation but I will look for it. I did add some information about the cork panels in the lifejacket to the article.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 17:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
See [1]. I'm not sure if we should delve into the details of this. The Fitzgerald is considered a grave site.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 17:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't mean to try to make you get it explained. I just meant to make sure that the source(s) said this. If they have it, I think we're cool.
BTW the pressure and absorbtion into the cork sounds very plausible, particularly if it somehow got forced to that depth. I wouldn't put in the "never gives up her dead" details in there. Long story short, I think that that relates to s slight different topic anyway Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
The 3 sources say the same thing except Stonehouse speculates that the body could be from minesweepers that went missing in 1918.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 20:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Cool. I think we're good then. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Two /Three Rogue Waves

Said "three rogue waves were reported" and then that the Anderson reported two rogue waves. The first sounds a little vague and possibly in conflict with the "two", or raise the question "it looks like the only place close enough to the Fitzgerald (the Anderson) to be relevant said two; where the "three waves" seen? And is it close enough to be relevant to the Fitz? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The sources I used all say that Cooper said there were two waves and possibly a third wave that would have hit the Fitzgerald about the time she sank. It sounds like it was Cooper who was vague about it.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 02:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Might be a slightly different question, but this answers it. The "3 wave" reports were talking about the Cooper/Anderson statement. I think we should noodle on this for a bit. North8000 (talk) 02:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC).
I guess what I really meant was not the 2 vs. 3, but that the first "3 wave" statement was already a bit vague, and that the 2 vs. 3 difference makes this worse by seemingly detaching it from the Anderson's report. Long story short, we could resolve this by adding a detail or two to the "3 wave" statement. Were ALL of those sources talking about the Anderson's "2, maybe 3" report? If so, I think we should word more by the source(s) that included/went by the direct quote. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I'll take a try at it. PLEASE revert me if you think the change is not for the better or away from sourcing.North8000 (talk) 14:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Did it. If you think this is fine, it resolves what I brought up. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Hatch Covers

The article mentions that most of the hatch cover clamps are intact. Would it be possible to clarify whether or not the hatch covers are still on? I'm assuming that they are not, (and the article seems to imply that) but the article doesn't say. North8000 (talk) 01:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

There was a lot of discussion about the hatch clamps in all of the sources. I will go back to the sources and see if I can come up with something that is clearer.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 02:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Just to clarify. I was asking about the hatch COVERS, not the hatch clamps. Are they on or off? North8000 (talk) 02:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
See the block quote from the NTSB that I added to the article. If you think it needs shortened up, please don't hesitate to edit it.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 13:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Do you know whether or not they're saying that an "open" clamp means that it was never buttoned down?
Yes, that's what they mean. Several of the books include photos of the clamps. --Wpwatchdog (talk) 13:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
So I think that that means that at least somebody is saying that such shows that not all of the clamps were secured. If so, I think that that would be a key assertion to include in the article. Sincerely,North8000 (talk) 16:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
The preceding paragraphs discuss the Coast Guard conclusion that the cause of sinking was ineffective hatch closure. Should we be more specific about what the Coast Guard said?--Wpwatchdog (talk) 22:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I think that one narrower sentence would do it. Something like "From the the NTSB concluded that many of the hatch cover clamps were not clamped". North8000 (talk) 00:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I read all of the sections of the NTSB report relevant to that. They really didn't make any statement about what undamaged hatch cover clamps meant. They did talk about probably having taken on some water gradually due to ineffective covers sealing (without getting more specific on the cause of the ineffectiveness) but their main finding and focus in this area was that one or more hatch covers collapsed under the weight of seas on deck. So I'm withdrawing any suggestions for additions here. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Purpose of block quote in shoaling section

Not clear which half of the ship they're taling about, what they are saying, and the purpose/meaning of the block quote in it's context of the article. Would it be possible to clarify on these questions? North8000 (talk) 01:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The block quote is preceded with "The Coast Guard investigation for hull damage of the bow found that:". This quote was in response to a former statement in the article that said shoaling could not be determined because the wreck was covered in mud. I agree that it does seem out of context in the article and it should be deleted.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 02:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I took it out. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

More on citations

Due South

I could not find a publisher for this link [2] that we used as a citation for the television show "Mountie on the Bounty". There isn't enough information about this link to format it as a web citation. I haven't been able to find a credible source. Unless we can find another citation, I don't think the paragraph or citation will pass a review. Should we delete it or let it stay for now?--Wpwatchdog (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, if the cite goes, I think that the paragraph will have to go, because a citeless paragraph would be even worse. Even by a slightly looser standard, I think that this would fail as a source, especially for the parts of the paragraph relating to the TV show, which is what gives it notability (not in in the wp:not sense). It's probably the artist's web site I'll ask the folks at the Due South article (and maybe the artist/site) if they have a better idea or any thoughts. If not, I think we should take it all out. North8000 (talk) 22:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I wrote the Due South article folks Talk:Due South#Having trouble with Due South section in SS Edmund Fitzgerald article. I don't think I'll write that web site. North8000 (talk) 23:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Paul Gross was much more than the artist - he was producer of Due South and co-wrote also. I will try and find some refs in the next 24 hours. Gross has a company called WhizBang films which may give more perspective which I will also check.
One problem so far is that the refs from the newspapers are pay per view...
Chaosdruid (talk) 23:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
From the waybackmachine - [3] [4]
Thanks! I think that something even a little stronger than what we have would do it. North8000 (talk) 11:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I have emailed to see if someone can come up with any newspaper/magazine quotes by Gross but am a little concerned that the statements he made are on video or at a Due South convention in 1998 and so would be pretty much unusable even though they are reported on the various sites. I will make a more conmprehensive list and post it here if there is no feedback to the email I sent. Chaosdruid (talk) 20:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
When you say "video", as I recall you (or someone) said that it was produced as a DVD in a set or something. If so, if would could provide the details, IMHO that might be enough. North8000 (talk) 20:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm - email recieved from his film company was of no help unfortunately.
I am watching videos now :¬)
Chaosdruid (talk) 02:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for trying on this. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I found these links but do they qualify? Please review. [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]--Wpwatchdog (talk) 03:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

No luck so far but I have sent further emails for more info and will await them - in particular the paulgross.org which is a fan site - they seem to get back to me around Monday afternoon so prob no joy till then. Also the front of the single sleeve and the CD relaease website shows it as Mackensie which I have rectified Chaosdruid (talk) 03:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on this. We'll see where we end up and then decide. (signed later)North8000 (talk) 11:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Dandy Warhols

I think citation #181 and #182 will also not pass a FA review. The music also probably does not meet WP:NSONG. Any thoughts on this?--Wpwatchdog (talk) 16:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the references, I'm not sure about what would happen at FA review, but in my opinion, the statement is just that they made the song, and the reference has creditability and knowledge regarding that particular statement. Regarding source type, it's a primary source, which means that it's use should be very limited, but also that the other RS criterial would inhernently not be there.

Regarding notability, wp:notability criteria are for existence as an article, not for inclusion in an article, so they would not apply here. Earlier in this article, for this section, we were sort of using a rough guideline of the artist or production having a wp article as a criteria for inclusion, but that's not official. Id don't have a strong opinion / clear feeling either way, but my gut feel is to leave this part and it's refs in for now. (If we take too much out we won't have a section.) And take it out if it has problems when reviewed. What do you think? North8000 (talk) 17:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't find "significant coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject" but I don't have a strong opinion about it either. Let's see what happens with further review.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 17:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Expanding on my earlier note, the criteria that you are quoting would apply if someone wanted to make an entire Wikipedia article on the song. We're not doing that here, so that criteria does not apply here. That criteria does not apply for inclusion of something in an article. Sincerely,North8000 (talk) 18:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
What criteria apply for content in an article? Due weight and source?--Wpwatchdog (talk) 18:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Verifiability is at the top of the list. Technically, that means verifyABLE / sourcABLE,not verifiED / sourcED, but for FA it inevitably means major statements etc. are going to have to be sourcED. Due weight really only comes into play where wp:npov is a question. Aside from there is also the question of just good writing. For example, is it germane & useful information? etc. North8000 (talk) 18:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. That helps my understanding of the criteria. It will be interesting to see what reviewers have to say about some of our content and sources.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 20:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I requested peer review of this article

I'm no expert at this, but I think that the discussion might be at: [[10]] North8000 (talk) 20:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you once again, North8000. I hope the article gets picked up for another review.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 22:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I checked Wikipedia:Verifiability. I used two self-published books for citations (Ramsey and Hainault). I will remove these citations and edit as needed.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 21:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
We must have been telepathic when we decided to take a close look at what Hainault said. I'm sort of glad to see the Hainault material go, given that it conflicted with everything else on observable facts regarding the shoaling damage. But if we're losing anything really solid looking and good, I would say to take a second look at using them anyway. But it looks like not. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Hainault's theory is still in the article but the material is derived from Stonehouse's book.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 22:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Just a side comment, but if Ramsey and Hainault have some credibility as "experts", you don't need to absolutely strip them from the article just because the books were self-published. If there are better sources for the same information, substitute those sources instead. Imzadi 1979 → 23:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Ramsey is a retired GLEW naval architect and he was on the design team for the hull of the Fitzgerald when it was built. That should qualify him as an expert on the Fitzgerald's structure, correct? But what about his material on the legal aspects of the Fitzgerald sinking?--Wpwatchdog (talk) 00:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
On second look, it looks like we lost some good material. Before we get too far along, do you want to revert to 22:19 24 January version (just before your deletions) and then do-over from there? North8000 (talk) 00:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
All of Ramseyl's material is back in the article. Hainault's theory is covered by Stonehouse's book so I did not use Hainault as a citation.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 02:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Cool. As always, thanks for your immense amount of excellent work. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

What you think about taking out the Due South material?

What you think about taking out the Due South material? I could go either way on this. But I'm thinking two things. We weren't even able to upgrade the sourcing (by WP standards) from really weak to weak. Also nothing in there is directly about the Fitz. North8000 (talk) 22:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The sourcing doesn't meet WP standards so it should be removed for now. We did try to find better sources but had no success. If someone can find a reliable source, we could always put back in the article.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 22:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
It is done. I tried to leave a thorough edit summary so that one can more easily find it later. North8000 (talk) 00:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Moving addition on chart age to here

Moved someones unsourced addition to nav chart section to here until we or they can get it sourced. Thank you to them for the contribution. We're going for FA review and would need a statement like that to be sourced. It is:

"It has also been said, the Fitzgerald's charts were nearly 100 years old."

North8000 (talk) 13:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I think this is actually referring to the navigational charts used on the Fitzgerald's last trip. The article already says the charts were based on 1916 and 1919 surveys. See the "Inaccurate navigational charts" section.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 13:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I think that settles it. Sincerely North8000 (talk) 14:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Boat or Ship

I know this discussion has been had before but it seems a couple people have decided to start it again. Before it turns into an edit war and asher's sock puppets take over should the vessel be referred to as a boat or a ship?--ChesterMarcol (talk) 20:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I looked at WP:Ships guidelines and couldn't find anything definite. People in the Great Lakes region do use the terms interchangeably but I think whatever is decided, it should be consistent throughout the article.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 20:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Confirming what WPwatchdog said, both are used on the Great Lakes. If we pick just one term, IMHO ship would be better. People who don't understand would keep questioning boat. North8000 (talk) 21:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
(added later) Or maybe we just, with the first use of the word boat, note that on the Great Lakes, ships are often referred to as boats. And then use both. North8000 (talk) 21:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean by Asher's sock puppets. Care to elaborate? Asher196 (talk) 21:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I would also like to point out that this article is part of WikiProject Shipwrecks and WikiProject Ships. Nuff said...Asher196 (talk) 21:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry I confused you with a different user with the name Asher. I agree that it should be consistent and in my opinion ships would be better.--ChesterMarcol (talk) 03:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

See the discussion on WikiProject Ships: What is ship, what is boat. My vote is to follow the guidelines WikiProject Ships establishes for when to call a vessel a ship or a boat and then make it consistent in the article.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 23:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Just to get it settled, I'm ready to go with 100% with ship, even though I sort of like using both terms. It's obviously a ship, and "boat" is often used locally for Great Lakes ships as sort of an "understatement" way of talking. Any objections to 100% ship? North8000 (talk) 23:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Quoting Lake freighter, "These vessels are traditionally called boats, even though they classify as ships." I'm in favor of retaining "boat". Sorry, guys, ship just sounds wrong. Imzadi 1979 → 00:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
WPwatchdog and I have been the two most active editors, and I think that we just want to do what is best rather than us having any strong opinions. (WPwatchdog, hope I didn't mis-speak) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't have a strong opinion about the terms. I've noticed this dispute on other ship related articles and was hoping to avoid it. Wikipedia guidelines would be helpful on this issue. You didn't mis-speak, North8000. Our goal is improve and advance the article.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 01:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, the standard that Wpwatchdog quoted seems more concerned on defining the point where its big enough to be called a ship rather than directly weighting in on this. The standard that Imzadi is quoting seems to address this question more directly/specifically. I'm not implying a preferred answer, I'm just talking. North8000 (talk) 12:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Discussion on expansion of lead

The PR suggested we do that. Here's some brainstorming on additional areas which could use summary there

- - - Beginning of editable area.....everyone feel free to add, delete, modify


  1. More on construction & launch
  2. More on events just prior to the sinking.
  3. More description of the ship
  4. More on surveys--Wpwatchdog (talk) 03:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  5. More on theories--Wpwatchdog (talk) 03:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  6. More on contributing causes--Wpwatchdog (talk) 03:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  7. More on changes to shipping--Wpwatchdog (talk) 03:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  8. More on it's working history

I think it's OK for 60% of the lead to be wreck related, but we're at about 75% right now which might be a bit high. North8000 (talk) 03:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I added some material to the lead. Basically condensed versions of what looked like key sentences from the article. I only brought a few references with. i think that norm is to not try to cite thinngs in the lead which are cited in the article. Everyone feel free to change or tweak. North8000 (talk) 22:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the lead looks good now.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 20:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

- - - - End of editable area

North8000 (talk) 23:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Location of peer review page for this article

FYI it's at [11]. There is a lot there, including discussions on content. North8000 (talk) 23:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Recent "900 feet from the border" addition

I think that the recent addition saying the wreck is 900 feet from the border is about right (matched my google earth check from the wreck co-ordinates. But it is a very specific claim which is unsourced. And it was put in by an IP who has no talk page. We'll have to figure out what to do with that. North8000 (talk) 18:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I reverted the 900 feet addition before I saw your comment. The 900 feet was placed in a sentence that is cited by the NTSB report. The NTSB report does not give the exact distance from the border. I have never come across a source that says how far the wreck is from the border. However, I have sources that claim part of the wreck is in Canada and part is in the US.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 20:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I would include those sources. My original research (which obviously cannot be included) shows that the coordinates given for the wreck site are precise enough not to encompass the entire wreck, and could easily place the wreck literally on the boarder of the two nations. I wasn't able to find those sources you refer to in a quick search, but the fact that the wreck is in both countries is certainly notable, and indesputably rare. Rapier (talk) 21:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I will add the text and sources soon. I expect some will dispute it.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 21:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
We do know that all sourcing that describes events relating to jurisdiction over the wreck, it's always Canada. The only co-ordinate that I've seen in a source is that buried in the info on that sketch, which looks like a RS. The last significant digit on that was a tenth of a minute which would imply a known accuracy of only +/- 1/2 mile. And they don't say which point on the wreckage field has those co-ordinates. The mystery IP put in 900 foot form the border, which could be right. My $100 field GPS unit has resolution of +/- 1 meter, and accuracy of +/- 13 feet. You'd think that somebody would have a better answer on where exactly the wreck is.  :-) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I added this to the survey section of the article (numbers indicate citations):

Prior to conducting the the dives, Shannon studied NOAA navigational charts and found that the international boundary changed 3 times before NOAA published it in 1976.[82] [83] Shannon determined that based on the GPS coordinates from the 1994 Deepquest expedition that "at least one-third of the two acres of immediate wreckage containing the two major portions of the vessel is in U.S. waters because of an error in the position of the U.S./Canada boundary line shown on official lake charts."[82][84]

--Wpwatchdog (talk) 17:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
The coordinates from the National Transportation Safety Board are given at the top of the article and in the info box.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 15:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
(reposted from here) This site states

The Edmund Fitzgerald Rest .0555 Statue Miles - .4392 Nautical Miles - 2669 Feet - 889.74 Yards from the US / Canada line. Center of wreck site - 46 59.8N - 85 06.7W / 46 59 48N - 85 06 42W

I'm looking for corroboration or a listing on a chart (this site lists NOAA Chart 14962). --Quartermaster (talk) 15:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
(reposted from here) The coordinates are reported in "Marine accident report SS Edmund Fitzgerald sinking in Lake Superior on November 10, 1975" (PDF). National Transportation Safety Board. 1978-05-04. p. 2. Retrieved 2010-11-19. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)--Wpwatchdog (talk) 15:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
(reposted from here) Best answer. Ya beat me by literally seconds! I would say that the NTSB report is about as authoritative a source one could find. --Quartermaster (talk) 00:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
There was another (later) thread on the same topic at the peer review page. (also that we had trimmed the statement out of the text) In the end I found it in the report and did the unusual move of adding it to and citing it the info box so as to be able to provide the NTSB citation for the coordinates. North8000 (talk) 15:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
And I just changed the page in the NTSB report citing the location from page 2 to page 3. Though cited in the abstract on page 2, the page 3 citation is slightly more accurate and exactly reflects the Lat-Lon used in the Infobox. --Quartermaster (talk) 15:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Cool! North8000 (talk) 16:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Crew list

PR says the crew list doesn't meet Wikipedia guidelines and suggested an external link for the crew list instead. I took care of the external link. Should we delete the crew list from the article?--Wpwatchdog (talk) 03:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm thinking that wp NotAMemorial relates more to creation of articles. But still, the articles are and should be written for the readers rather than to honor anyone. But, much of that info is interesting. E.G. what were the crew positions on the ship, what is the age ranges of the crew, where are they from etc. But that chart does look unusually big for an article. Maybe summarize some of that type of info in text. Right now I'm just discussing, not sure what I think. North8000 (talk) 03:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I checked Wikipedia articles of well known shipwrecks with loss of life. It looks like most of them do not list the passengers and crew lost.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 14:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Maybe replace it with a few sentences summarizing the crew positions, age range and where they generally came from?
Agree. I think the summary sentences would work well after this sentence in the last paragraph of the Search section: "The search recovered debris, including lifeboats and rafts, but no survivors from the 29-man crew." Maybe place the summary after this sentence and make the rest of the existing paragraph into a new paragraph?--Wpwatchdog (talk) 16:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I guess it could go anywhere, since it's information about it the crew, not necessarily tied to the fact that they died. But either way, let's start with it as you describe. North8000 (talk) 23:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Workspace for development of crew description - feel free to change

The crew consisted of the captain, the first, second and third mates, 4 engineers, 3 oilers, a cook, a wiper, 2 maintenance men, 3 watchmen, 3 deck hands, 3 wheelsmen, 2 porters, a cadet and a steward. Most of them were from Ohio and Wisconsin.

North8000 (talk) 00:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC) End of editable workspace.

How about something like, "The crew's ages ranged from Captain McSorley at 63 years sailing his last season before retirement to deckhand Bruce Hudson at 22 years working his first season as a merchant marine"? I can cite it if we decide to use something like that.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 00:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
The above (just under the subsection title) is just scratch paper, not a proposal to put something in. What you wrote should go in. Maybe add average age (45 years old)? North8000 (talk) 01:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, there are ideas above on positions, where they came from and ages. What should go in? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Probably all of the above should be included, except maybe leave out the names since the rest of the crew are not named. I think the information should either go towards the end of the search subsection or in a new subsection after the search subsection.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 20:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

How bout the following paragraph to replace the crew table (feel free to modify) :

The crew consisted of the captain, the first, second and third mates, 4 engineers, 3 oilers, a cook, a wiper, 2 maintenance men, 3 watchmen, 3 deck hands, 3 wheelsmen, 2 porters, a cadet and a steward. The crew's ages ranged from Captain McSorley at 63 years sailing his last season before retirement to deckhand Bruce Hudson at 22 years working his first season as a merchant marine. Most of them were from Ohio and Wisconsin.

North8000 (talk) 02:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

If things go as planned I'll be out of commission for 2 days. (camping in the snow) North8000 (talk) 12:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Br-r-r-r. I removed the table listing the crew and replaced it with the above paragraph with some revision.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 16:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Quasi-vandalism

I just reverted 4 edits by an IP that went against references. Is this article watch listed by those who are working on it? The IP also replaced the list of crewmembers which was just removed if I'm not mistaken. With all of the work that has been done on this article now is the time to watch for changes that damage your work. Brad (talk) 05:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I know at least two editors are monitoring the article and would catch the vandalism within a day. However, if the pace of vandalism increases, should the article be semi-protected?--Wpwatchdog (talk) 16:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Brad, thanks for noting that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Changes can happen fast so that while you're editing a section someone else is editing another. You need to look at the page history for those type of edits. Brad (talk) 19:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thin on images?

That was one general comment at PR that we have not really tackled. Looking at it, I think we could use 1 or 2 more images. Also make 1 or 2 of the existing ones a bit bigger. North8000 (talk)

Public domain photos of the Fitzgerald are not readily available. I know that we could get more via a USCG FOIA request if we want to wait for their response. I have one photo that I will upload soon that was a Coast Guard photo. Meanwhile, please go ahead with tweaking the images we have.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 18:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Cool. I think that even one additional photo will do the trick. North8000 (talk) 18:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Other possibilities are one of the museums, or a picture of Whitefish Point, or where she last loaded in Superior, where she was dry docked. North8000 (talk) 21:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Might I suggest the ships bell; I couldn't find a good spot but thought it worth considering. --Quartermaster (talk) 16:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Done - added to memorial section.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 21:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Northwestern common practice

In the first paragraph of the history section, the last sentence states, "It was common practice for Northwestern to purchase ships for operation by other companies." Boatnerd is used to cite this sentence. I removed or replaced Boatnerd as a reference in the rest of the article because several editors have questioned its reliability. So far I have not been able to find another source for the above sentence. If we cannot locate another source, should we remove the sentence and the Boatnerd citation?--Wpwatchdog (talk) 16:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that it is an informative statement in an area that people will be curious. Could you say that this is also a summary of what is in the other sources (or substitute a statement that safely is) and then use the other sources for the cite? North8000 (talk) 17:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I recall that we had prior discussion on this sentence. So far, I haven't been able to locate a source that comes close to what is in the sentence. I'm still looking.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 17:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I looked in all my source books and did an online search and I could not find a source that exactly backed up this sentence other than Boatnerd. Page 18-19 of Andra-Warner's book said,

... [Edmund Fitzgerald] saw the Great Lakes as a crucial link between the resources in the American Midwest and the industrial sectors in the east. Under his leaderhship, NMLIC had became the single largest investor in companies operating on the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway. Financing the building of its own ships was a logical next step fr NMLIC, particularly as it geared up to celebrate its 100-year anniversary.

This online history of Northwestern mentions the Fitzgerald but does not say anything about a history of investing in ship building: Northwestern Mutual History. Do we need to change the sentence?--Wpwatchdog (talk) 15:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Did you find some indication of this in the sources? If so, a scaled back version of the sentence could be a summary of what's in the sources. North8000 (talk) 16:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
The above quote is the closet thing I could find. The second sentence in the construction section already says, "Northwestern was a heavy investor in iron and mineral industries and was the first insurance company in American history to invest in an ore freighter." It is from Schumacher's book. I think that is enough unless you can find something to back up Boatnerd's claim. I couldn't find any evidence that Northwestern Mutual ever had another ship built after the Fitzgerald.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 16:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

There was a lot of detailed material at boatnerd.

On April 10th, 1957 the Cleveland Plain Dealer announced the sale of the J. Burton Ayers with her fleet mates J.H. Hillman Jr. and Richard M. Marshall to the Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Co., Milwaukee, WI to be chartered for 15 years to and operated by Wilson Marine Transit Co., Cleveland, OH following the take over of Great Lakes Steamship Co. by Wilson Transit Marine Co. The laker retained her name but only fit out in late 1958 (Sept. 26th, 1958 to Dec. 4th, 1958) due to a drop in demand for iron ore and the Ayers being too large to enter the many of the smaller port locations of Wilson's customers. This size problem and their higher operating costs plagued the Ayers and her fleet mates throughout their tenure with Wilson.

And we put this is at the suggestion of our GA reviewer to fill a "gap" in the article, and now we'd be going back to the "gap" Maybe we could try finding something on one of these and putting in a milder sentence like that Northwestern owned/leaqsed other boats. (?) North8000 (talk) 18:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I did a lot of searching and didn't find anything better. North8000 (talk) 20:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I did another search in a maritime database based on the Boatnerd paragraph, and it turns out that Boatnerd was accurate. Here is the link: Burton Ayers. Does documentation that Northwestern Mutual owned at least 3 other ships qualify as common practice? If not, we probably need to revise the sentence under discussion to reflect our source.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 21:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I scaled back the reach of the wording a bit which I think puts it within the ref. As always feel free to undo or change. North8000 (talk) 21:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
The sentence looks good. I will change the citation to Maritime History of the Great Lakes.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 22:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Reference, Thompson 1991

There is a short note ref to "Thompson (1991), p. 169." which wasn't linking to a full citation. I noticed that there was no full citation under "References", but there was one, of sorts, in the "Lack of watertight bulkheads" section, following the sentence ending "flooding of the entire cargo hold area." I've altered the latter ref to a short note to match the rest of the article, moved the full citation to the proper place, and added a |ref= so that it's linked from the short note. However, in the short note left behind in "Lack of watertight bulkheads", there is no page number. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the fix. I added the missing page number. If you follow the url in the ref, it takes you to the Google book page 168. If you click on the link to page 168, you can read the full paragraph about watertight paragraphs.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 14:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Northwestern Mutual contract with Great Lakes Engineering Works

I could not find the source documenting that Northwestern mutual contracted Great lakes Engineering Works on February 1, 1957. I will revise the following sentences to reflect information available in sources until someone can find verfication:

On February 1, 1957,Northwestern, contracted Great Lakes Engineering Works (GLEW), of River Rouge, Michigan, to design and build a iron ore bulk carrier laker. The contract contained the stipulation that the boat be the largest on the Great Lakes.

--Wpwatchdog (talk) 19:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Oops. Spoke too soon. I found the source.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 19:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Unit conversions significant digits and sequences

I'm thinking of changing these to remove "synthetic" extra digits and also to put the units from the source first. For example, this might change "86.9 knots (160.9 km/h; 100.0 mph)" to "100 mph (161 km/h; 87 knots)". Part of this handles a PR suggestion, Does anybody see anything wrong with this? North8000 (talk) 17:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean to not change the units as reported by the source but correct the synthetic extra digits? I haven't had a chance to check on the original units from sources yet. The NOAA computer simulation units are available online. I will report back here about the units I used from books and leave it to you to make conversion corrections if that is OK?--Wpwatchdog (talk) 18:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Reporting units through Final voyage and wreck section:
Design and construction:
Hatch dimensions 11 x 48 ft, 5/16 inch thick
Done (checked - was already OK North8000 (talk) 12:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Final voyage and wreck:
3rd paragraph, line two, 48 knots is not included in Wolff’s book, I think this was added according to the Wikipedia definition of storm.
3rd paragraph, line five, 69 knots per Wolff, 100 mph per Wolff and Bishop, 35 feet per Wolf, Bishop, and Thompson
100 mph is done (changed) North8000 (talk) 12:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
69 knots and 35 feet Done (checked - was already OK) North8000 (talk) 12:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
4th paragraph, line one, 50 knots per NTSB report
Done (checked - was already OK) North8000 (talk) 12:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
4th paragraph, line two, 75 knot wind gust per Wolff
Done (checked - was already OK) North8000 (talk) 12:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

--Wpwatchdog (talk) 19:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

"Waves and weather" paragraph 3, I'm assuming that all 4 were in MPH, the only even numberNorth8000 (talk) 12:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
All 4 done North8000 (talk) 12:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


I meant to start with the units reported by the source, based on presuming that the even number in the text in the article is what was in the source. (or, when you specifically say it as you have above, to follow what you said) So, with my example, even if you had not said it, it's pretty clear that no source said 86.9 knots, or 160.9 km/h, but did say 100 mph. (plus, also trim any extra synthetic digits) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I checked the rest of the units. You are correct. None of the sources used decimals except in the Increased load, decreased freeboard section, the NTSB used fractions. The Fitzgerald had a 14 feet 9/14 inch minimum winter freeboard in 1958 and a 11 feet 6 inch minimum winter freeboard in 1973. Thank you for cleaning up the unit conversion.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 21:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Working on it. Trying to get up to speed on the conversion template. It is so poorly documented that I think it will be easier to do it by hand vs. trying to figure out the undocumented stuff by trial and error. Either way I'll decide and do it soon. North8000 (talk) 02:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Figured it out, now I'm rolling.North8000 (talk) 12:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I think that work in this area is now completed.
Glad that's done. Thank you.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 18:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Open questions on units

We have discussions in a few places on this, and there are several questions in the air at once. I thoug I might lay it out here to help get it sorted out. In each case, I think we're asking whether is a rule/guideline/expected practice on each of these. Please feel free to write under the individual headings. Thanks North8000 (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


#1 Should we do anything special the first time a unit is used in the article?=

For example, the current practice in the article which is to spell it out fully (no abbreviation) regardless of whether it is a primary or converted unit.

If it is abbreviated afterwards, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Conventions mandates that a unit be spelled out on first use:

However, spell out the first instance of each unit in an article (for example, the typical batch is 250 kilograms ... and then 15 kg of emulsifier is added), except for unit names which are hardly ever spelled out even in publications for general audiences (e.g. the degree Celsius).

Linking is a requirement for uncommon units and ambiguous unit abbreviations (I don't recall any in the article), and advised against for common units, but there is a room in-between. --Rontombontom (talk) 20:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

#2 When a short unit (e.g. feet, knots) is used again in the article as the primary unit, is it OK to spell it out (vs. abbreviation)?

Currently the article is doing this (spelling it out)

Apparently it is OK. According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Conventions, abbreviation is not a requirement but a possibility, and there is no requirement of consistency across all units either. What's more, as rationale for using abbreviation, the length of the spelled-out unit name is brought up explicitly (my bold below). So, in the SS Edmund Fitzerald article, I think it's enough to force the abbreviation of "miles per hour" only.

Where space is limited, such as in tables, infoboxes, and parenthetical notes, and in mathematical formulas, unit symbols are preferable. In prose it is usually better to spell out unit names, but symbols may also be used when a unit (especially one with a very long name) is used many times in an article.

#3 Is it a requirement/guideline/expected practice to always use the dash when the units are an adjective?

For example, this would say that it must be 35-foot waves, not 35 foot waves.

Yes, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Unit names mandates this is for units that are spelled out: "When they form a compound adjective, values and unit names should be separated by a hyphen: for example, a five-day holiday."
WP:HYPHEN also says: "Values and units used as compound adjectives are hyphenated only where the unit is given as a whole word; when the unit symbol is used, it is separated from the number by a non-breaking space ( )." --Rontombontom (talk) 20:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but as Rontombontom notes above, it's a hyphen rather than a dash. (The hyphen, en dash, and em dash are all of slightly different lengths and are used in different ways.) The construction here is parallel to something like Yellow-bellied Flycatcher. Finetooth (talk) 20:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

#4 Is it a requirement/guideline/expected practice to be consistent on what primary units are used throughout the article?

(We're assuming that we're not talking about quotes, which would be verbatim)

Currently the article is using the units that were in the source as the primary units. In (only) one place this produces an awkward looking flip-flop. Otherwise it's just a question of whether consistency in that respect is required or an expected practice.

No, to the contrary: the problem was the enforcement of a primary unit consistency, with manual conversion of the number in the source and then the back-conversion with the convert template, which led either to a bad number or WP:OR-violating synthetic precision.
In the guidelines, there is always some leeway and some conflict between individual recommendations. WP:CALC allows simple calculations, including conversions, but "provided editors agree that the arithmetic and its application correctly reflect the sources". WP:UNITS says "When the source uses one set of units, generally put that one first; if editors cannot agree, put the source's units first. If they are not first, this should be stated in the citation." In line with this, MOS:CONVERSIONS includes "Converted values should use a level of precision similar to that of the source value": it says source value, not just primary value. But WP:UNITS also has "Avoid mixing systems of measurement used for primary measures" (the mixing being done within a sentence), but also "Nominal and defined values should be given in the original units first, even if this makes the article inconsistent".
Also see WP:FAC discussion. --Rontombontom (talk) 20:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Rontombontom, whose thorough explanation has convinced me to modify my views. A distortion, now that I understand the distortion, is worse than a stylistic flip-flop. I want to thank Rontombontom for taking the time and trouble to work through and explain the problem. Finetooth (talk) 20:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Wow, I'm floored :-)
For the benefit of future readers and those who didn't follow the PR and FAC discussions, I document the specific distortions that led to this whole discussion:
  • "43.45 knots (50.00 mph; 80.47 km/h)": this was originally in the article. The value in knots was obviously a manual conversion of a whole number in mph in the source, with unwarranted precision.
  • "43 knots (49 mph; 80 km/h)": this was the first correction, now with proper precision. However, after two conversions and roundings, the back-converted mph value differs from that in the source.
  • "44 knots (51 mph; 81 km/h)" vs. "51 miles per hour (44 kn; 82 km/h)": in a multiple conversion, a less significant distortion is possible: the value in the third unit can differ. --Rontombontom (talk) 08:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
    So, in this example, what came from the source was presumably 50 mph, and 50 mph (43 kn; 80 km/h) would presumably be the correct form/numbers. (?) North8000 (talk) 14:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
    Precisely :-) --Rontombontom (talk) 15:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
    But to play devil's advocate a moment, if the source was 50.00 mph, then the extra precision is warranted in that first example. {{convert}} can be set to produce the level of precision desired, and it can be set to invert the output order. Imzadi 1979 → 15:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
    TRUE, but I don't think that such was the case. Such accuracy is uncommon for wind speeds, not only due to limitations in the measuring process, but also acknowledging the variability, even spatially (e.g. with turbulence) Also, I think it's pretty clear that the extra zeroes were synthetic and where they came from. Somebody did an exact conversion (e.g. on a calculator) of 50 mph to 43.45 knots so as to be able to use knots as the primary unit and still have it convert to 50 mph. Then the convert template sees 4 significant digits in the primary number and so puts 4 significant digits in the converted unit. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

#5 Are any other changes in the article needed in this respect?

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes: in infoboxes, symbols/abbreviations are mandated by Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Avoiding ambiguities: "In tables and infoboxes, use unit symbols and abbreviations—do not spell them out."
...and to cut the long story short: I think the above (the infobox abbreviations) is the only change you have to make in the current article. I think Finetooth's preference for keeping converted units abbreviated even on first use and rather wikilink them was meant be taken as giving his own stylistic preference, which you may choose to like and adopt or not. --Rontombontom (talk) 20:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Just a comment, but I've successfully sent six articles through FAC, and I've never spelled out common units of measure nor linked them. I've just used the convert template and nothing's come of it. There is a discussion at WT:FAC about the primacy of units in measurements, so you might want to follow that discussion. Otherwise, as long as you're using the template and invoking the |adj=on as needed for adjectives, you should be fine. Imzadi 1979 → 20:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

To all of you a big THANK YOU. I think I understand what we now need to do. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Completion/ action items regarding this are at the peer review page. North8000 (talk) 23:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SS_Edmund_Fitzgerald/Archive_2&oldid=1137168665"