Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SS Edmund Fitzgerald/archive1

SS Edmund Fitzgerald

I feel that this article is well written, stable, long enough, and interesting. Most importantly it tells a story that a lot of people, especially outside of the great lakes don't already know. -Drdisque 07:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object: Far too short
1. Either Laker or SS Edmund Fitzgerald needs more information on the design of Great Lakes ore carriers: they're long, thin, straight-sided, sit low in the water when loaded, and aren't particularly good at handling a major storm.
2. Needs an explanation of the November storms on the Great Lakes, and that the Fitzgerald was running unusually late in the shipping season -- IIRC, it was after most ships had stopped running for the winter.
3. IIRC, there was a great deal of speculation around the lack of bodies in the wreckage. This isn't mentioned at all.
4. Needs more coverage of "The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald"
5. I'm sure there's more.
--Carnildo 08:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. Where are the sources? Soothing R 14:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. No references, no inline citations ({{inote}}, Wikipedia:Footnotes) at all, failing requirement 2c. Not thorough, 2b, and not well written enough, 2a. The lead section is entirely about the sinking of the ship, not the ship itself: SS Edmund Fitzgerald was a cargo ship that sank suddenly on Lake Superior, November 10, 1975. All of the statistics are unsourced. There are too many sections with too little information, especially the Search section, which should be merged into the Last Voyage section possibly. Many of the statistics are already listed in the The ship section, and the rest of them should be merged into the section in the form of prose. The article also needs copyediting.

In addition, the words it and she are used interchangeably; In the last voyage section, it appears once, she/her appears at least 3 times. The article has to be heavily revised in order to make the FA requirements. AndyZ 17:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object as per the others. Refer to Peer Review The Catfish 02:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object: too short, sentences are stylistically inadequate (very choppy) & no references... Mikkerpikker 11:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object per above. This is a shame, as the ship, the wreck, the song, all are worth serious attention, and there are at least two books on the subject. Both are somewhat impressionistic, but they also have good history in them. I nearly wish this were a COTW. I recognize that the anniversary of the sinking was recent, and that may have inspired the nomination. Maybe by next year the article will be worthy of its subject. Geogre 15:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object: A fascinating subject, but it's not FA material - no references - it's very short, even shorter without the list of crew, that need not necessarily a problem, but only one image as well....! There must be heaps more to say on this subject on which a great deal seems to have been published. Giano | talk 13:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]