Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SS Edmund Fitzgerald/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 17:24, 20 March 2011 [1].

SS Edmund Fitzgerald

[edit]

SS Edmund Fitzgerald (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): North8000 (talk) 01:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because we think it is ready, and believe that it is both a famous and interesting topic. Famous for many reasons, including a 729 foot long ship going down in a huge storm with 35 ft waves on a lake, with all hands lost, and the cause remaining a mystery. In early November 2010 we went into high gear on an effort to improve this article, with the ultimate goal of becoming Featured Article of the Day on November 10, 2011, the anniversary of the date that the Edmund Fitzgerald sank. We have put ourselves through several self-reviews which were as tough as we could make them. We then asked for and received a thorough review when it achieved GA. We then submitted it to Peer Review, and asked for and received a thorough review by several individuals, a process which has now been completed. In the last 4 months we have made about 1,800 edits to the article itself, trying to make it the best possible, and responding to all of the expert feedback which we received and are so so thankful for. We have active editors ready to respond to any feedback. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - based on responses to my concerns and progress made regarding other user's points as well. Comments from Canada Hky (talk) 23:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC) I love the song, and enjoyed reading the article. Just a few notes, as this mainly focuses on sea-faring (lake-faring?) terms that gave me pause in the article. Apologies in advance if any of these are stupid questions. Just think of me as an inquisitive idiot.[reply]

Thanks! We'll address them in line. As a general note, during PR it was indicated that we're near the max recommended size....we trimmed it a bit, and thus we're also having to keep that in mind. Sincerely,North8000 (talk) 03:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's a "long ton" - is a wikilink possible? Also, I realize this might be a function of significant figures available in the source, but under "Design and construction" 26000 long tons = 26000 t, but under "Career", we have 27,402 long tons = 27,842 t.
    I corrected that now (wikilink and missing conversion precision fixing). --Rontombontom (talk) 10:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the christening, the cite placement seems strange, being placed after "christening", and then not having a cite for the fact that it took three tries.
    Thanks for pointing that out. I moved it to the end of the sentence. North8000 (talk) 04:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I might have missed it, but would a link to flagship be useful in the career section?
    Yes, thanks. I added it. North8000 (talk) 03:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was there a reason they stopped carrying guests a few weeks before the ship sank?
    I can't find anything in the sources about why they stopped carrying passengers a few weeks before the ship sank. It is probably a safe assumption it was because heavy weather on the Great Lakes usually begins by the first of November but Stonehouse didn't give a reason.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 21:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Done So I think a statement leading a reader to believe that such was overall ended does not have a basis. I was copy editing that sentence anyway for a different reason, and changed it to the known statement. ....that they were carried as recently as a few weeks before the sinking. North8000 (talk) 04:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It ran aground in 1969 and collided with the S.S. Hochelaga in 1970. It struck the wall of a lock later that same year, and again in 1973." - anyway to eliminate the consecutive "It" to start the sentence.
    That was a simple copyedit: I exchanged the second "It" with the ship name in the next sentence. --Rontombontom (talk) 11:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this sentence "...made the Fitzgerald a young ship when it foundered." is "foundered" referring to the previously described incidents, or the sinking?
    For ships "founder" specifically means sinking and is used a lot in the article. I changed the word to "sank" in the case which you noted to avoid confusion with the previous sentence by those less familiar with the term. North8000 (talk) 04:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Captain Paquette of the Sykes reported that after 1 a.m., he overheard McSorley say that his ship was working so much that he had reduced his RPMs." - why is that important / relevant? I understand that if the ship is working harder, RPMs increase - but I don't understand the relationship in this sentence.
    It could be that only the deceased captian could say for sure what he meant. But I think it's pretty sure that that meant that the ship was really getting beat up and possibly stressing/flexing/twisting pounding through the waves at the prior speed. And the "reducing the RPM's" is a way of saying he was lowering the ship's speed. I think that the significance is that this is a sourced indication that the ship was first starting to have a hard time. I guess the question is whether we should add more explanation on that without venturing into OR. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If it can't be adequately explained, the other option is to remove it. I agree that the exact meaning is unknown because the captain isn't around to clarify, but it is confusing as is. Canada Hky (talk) 20:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Substituted everyday wording for both terms. North8000 (talk) 12:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "lee" - has this been linked, or explained previously?
    Thanks for pointing that out. I added an internal link. North8000 (talk) 04:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Cargo hold flooding" section, the following sentence, "To avoid paying overtime even in foul weather, it was common practice for ore freighters to set out with not all of the clamps locked in place on the hatch covers." I don't see the link between OT and the hatches? Possibly an explanation of how long it would take to close the clamps? In the next sentence, with the "weather permitting" part - does this mean they would leave them open in bad weather?
    This tripped me, too, when I did a peer review of the article; it was then that the editors chose a direct quote, but maybe a paraphrase to avoid the confusion would be better. --Rontombontom (talk) 10:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The only solution that I can think of is a much briefer statement with a different source. "Avoid OT" I think means that to fully fasten the clamps in port within the desired shipping schedule would require longer (more expensive) work days. And I'm guessing "weather permitting" was a mis-speak, that they meant meant "if weather required". But that would be pretty far into OR to say that from the quote. North8000 (talk) 11:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    My guess was that in the quoted sentence, "weather permitting" was not a mis-speak, but an indication that the time-consuming clamping work at port could take even longer than a day if weather is bad. But as you guessed differently and as Fifelfoo was confused, at least a longer quote (giving context) is necessary for the use of this source for a clearer paraphrase; if the context doesn't make things clear, then another source as you say. --Rontombontom (talk) 12:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The "weather permitting" sentence was a precise quote. I paraphrased it. I hope that helps clear it up. I deleted the part about overtime.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 15:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lack of instrumentation" - "Mark Twain's time" - when exactly is that? Also, how recent a development was a fathometer? Cutting edge technology in 1975, or its been around for 40 years?
    I deleted "Mark Twain and clarified that fathometers were available when the Fitzgerald sank. The source did not specify when fathometers were developed or first in use.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 16:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article uses both Sykes and Wilfred Sykes, is it common to switch between? I noticed the usage of Fitzgerald is fairly consistent.
    Thanks. We discussed this regarding the Fitz and decided that the we'd use "Edmund Fitzgerald" for the first occurrence in each section and then just the "Fitzgerald" after that. I think we need to apply that same rule to the Sykes. North8000 (talk) 03:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That has now been done. North8000 (talk) 03:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, it is frequently "Captain Paquette" vs. "Paquette", but almost always "McSorley".
    Revised for consistency.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 16:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1c/2c review. Source quality in general looks good (with a few notes below on 2 sources), except, I am at sea with music source quality, and cannot review that. Interesting article from the lede and citations. Citation quality stuff is just fixits. I do not check for plagiarism or close paraphrasing. DOIs are fine, but only present for a limited number of academic works (1?). This is a fairly normal sourcing and citation quality review for me, with normal issues noted; but: Possible COI note: North8000 and I both edit on a contentious and difficult article, closers ought to be aware that I've attempted to avoid any COI; but, please take into account this possible source of COI on my part. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC) All fixits requested performed in a timely manner. 1c/2c is good except for: music citations, plagiarism and paraphrase checking (which I don't do). Well done to the article authors for such quick responses Fifelfoo (talk) 22:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, I'm totally cool with it, don't consider it COI, and thank you for your work North8000 (talk) 19:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Nikkimaria (talk) 14:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this Nikkimaria's Oppose? Hard to tell since the sig is separated by commentary. What is the status? Has Nikkimaria been pinged? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's mine, and unfortunately I'm not ready to change my declaration. Most of the specific issues I brought up have been fixed, but the general issues (MoS and prose quality in particular, haven't rechecked referencing lately) are still problematic. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Doing more review and work on it regarding prose. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Worked on prose revision. Suggestions are welcome.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 16:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just completed more review and work on prose, with the help of someone else who I asked to look over my shoulder in the process. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dab link to merchant seaman, ref 234 is a broken link
    Could not find at that pointer, Nor in a text search of the whole article and of the pre-nomination version of the article. Could you clarify? Thanks. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Merchant seaman is a strange disambiguation page, with one link to Merchant Navy and another to a redirect to the same. Ref 234 apparently became ref 232 in the meantime; fixed both. --Rontombontom (talk) 12:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quite a few run-on sentences - please split or reword
    Some examples:
    • "SS Edmund Fitzgerald (nicknamed "Mighty Fitz," "Fitz," or "Big Fitz") was an American Great Lakes freighter, which was known for its size and became famous after sinking in a Lake Superior storm on November 10, 1975, with the loss of the entire crew" - move size to another sentence
      Revised.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 17:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The Fitzgerald set seasonal haul records six different times[6] and became nicknamed "Fitz", "Pride of the American Flag",[30] "Mighty Fitz", "Toledo Express",[31] "Big Fitz",[32] or the "Titanic of the Great Lakes"." - should be two sentences
      Revised.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 17:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Then I went through the whole article looking for other run-ons. I think we got them all. North8000 (talk) 14:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When the wreck was found on November 14, by Navy aircraft" - Canadian or US Navy?
    Someone fixed this.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 16:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Each includes factors and events in addition to the storm such as structural failure, shoaling, rogue waves, taking on water through the cargo hatches or deck due to topside damage, and human factors which may in turn have caused or contributed to these" - awkward and unclear as written
    Reworked that sentence. This was a tough but important one to shorten and simplify for the lead. Each theory and finding has factors which caused each other, compounded with each other, or which were a link in the theorized causal chain of events. North8000 (talk) 13:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several manual of style problems, particularly in hyphens/dashes and overlinking
    On linking: The article has a lot of terminology that needs definitions without pushing the recommended size limit. Rontombontom just made a few reductions and took out the one dup. I know of 2-3 more which I'd feel comfortable taking out unilaterally. If we take out more, I think that borderline ones are place names and semi-commonplace terms. We're happy to do that if it's the right thing. I'll bring this up on the talk page North8000 (talk) 11:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I dealt with the remaining hyphen to endash conversions. I found a single case of successive links, which was in one of the phrases repeated from the lede, and copyedited it. I have noticed only one case of repeated linking of the same word close in the text (Detroit River); repeating when far apart is permitted per WP:REPEATLINK. Other than that, I don't see cases of overlink: for example, the linked professions aren't common knowledge. --Rontombontom (talk) 11:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I finished my "unilateral" pass and took out 4 more. Beyond that, and based on Rontombonntom's comment, maybe we are now reduced enough, and awaith further comments on this. North8000 (talk) 12:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Examples:
    • Unnecessary links: pantry, coal, oil.
      I took out pantry in that previous batch of removals, now I took out coal. I previously considered taking out oil, but it links to the particular type of oil used as fuel for ships which I thought would be useful for general readers. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Repeated links: second mate, Caribou Island
      Fixed.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 17:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hyphen problems: "5⁄16-inch (7.9 mm) thick", "U.S.-flag", "mid-section"
      Fixed mid-section, looks like someone already fixed the other two North8000 (talk) 21:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dash problems: most ranges that use prepositions (for example, "between 5:00–5:30 p.m"), "pp. 16-17" (should use an endash)
      I fixed the one remaining pagerange endash, the other was already endash; and fixed the non-adjective "X inch thick steel". "U.S.-flag" functions as an adjective in "U.S.-flag ship", it seemed awkward however, so I copyedited it as "ship sailing under the U.S. flag". I was less sure regarding mid-section, but edited it assuming it's normally hyphenated only as adjective too. --Rontombontom (talk) 18:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Midsection is a word, changed it to that which settles it either way. :-) North8000 (talk) 21:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we avoid repeating phrases word-for-word between the lead and the article text?
    I believe these are now all fixed. North8000 (talk) 12:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "classic lines" - what does this mean? What's a "lost-time accident"? Make sure the text is accessible to non-specialist readers
    Replaced "classic lines" with "appearance". Still noodling on / researching "lost-time..." North8000 (talk) 03:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "time-off" is also now resolved. Reworded sentence North8000 (talk) 11:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "passengers as company guests" - guests of Northwestern or Oglebay?
    I checked all of my sources and they did not specify which company had guests aboard the Fitzgerald. I would guess it could have been Northwestern, Columbia, or Oglebay, but I couldn't confirm it. Stonehouse said that the passengers were company guests but he did not specify which companies.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 17:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spell out numbers under 10
    For the record, I found one "8 hours" and one "3 times", fixed those. There is the crew list by rank, but I'm not sure if the rule applies for that. All other numbers below 10 appear to be measurements. --Rontombontom (talk) 11:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it also applies to the crew list
    Fixed North8000 (talk) 15:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • SS or S.S.?
    SS. Found one S.S. and changed it to SS. North8000 (talk) 15:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Avoid repetitive phrasing - for example, you open five consecutive paragraphs with "The Fitzgerald..."
    Mostly fixed, needs one more sentence changed. That awaits researching on another issue. North8000 (talk) 04:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Done North8000 (talk) 11:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use a consistent time format
    I found and converted 2-3 remaining ISO format dates. --Rontombontom (talk) 11:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Great, but my concern was about times, not dates
    Do you mean the 7 p.m./7:00 p.m. duality? (A consistent "p.m." format was one of my own PR recommendations, and I couldn't find missed ones.) Is there a MOS on this? --Rontombontom (talk) 13:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep - MoS requires colons in times, though it allows for either p.m. or 24-hour time
    Yes, MOS:TIME does require colons as separators: "colons separate hours, minutes, and seconds (1:38:09 pm and 13:38:09)" However, it doesn't say anything about hour, hour/minute, hour/minute/second notations. --Rontombontom (talk) 15:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Now all times are hours:minutes, but finding a guideline on this would be nice. --Rontombontom (talk) 18:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs a thorough copy-edit for grammar ("McSorley called again the Anderson"?), flow and clarity.
    That example phrase would be a typo, but I was unable to find it, even pre-submisison versions of the article. Do you know where it was? Thanks North8000 (talk) 03:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You couldn't find it because I already fixed that (as previously noted in the edit summary and the article's Discussion page). --Rontombontom (talk) 11:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    More examples:
  • Need a more consistent formatting for references. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you be more specific on some of your points? Even supposing the article fails the FAC vote now, the editors won't be able to figure out what exactly should be improved before a second attempt. --Rontombontom (talk) 11:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Which points in particular? Fifelfoo has provided a fairly detailed list of referencing problems, and I've responded to some of your comments above. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you mean that your "more consistent formatting for references" recommendation seconds Fifelfoo's specifics? Other than that, the points I wondered about: run-on sentences, MOS and overlink, time format (I think I guessed that one now), and possibly more examples of what needs copy-edit for grammar and flow. --Rontombontom (talk) 13:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    To some extent, yes - in general, reference formatting should be more consistent, but Fifelfoo gives some good specific examples of what that means. Responded to the other points in-line.
    Thanks. Action items being dealt with in those specific areas. North8000 (talk) 12:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support For full disclosure, I happened upon this article when participating as reviewer in its pre-FAC Peer Review, but at the end of it I became a significant contributor to one sub-section, which my judgement shall not apply to (1.3 Final voyage and wreck, which I reordered to correct and complement the timeline). I support the nomination because

  • the theme of the article is not close to me yet managed to get me interested as reader;
  • the article covers all aspects of its theme, from the technical aspects of the ship through operation history and all the various theories on sinking to its memory;
  • during the three weeks as reviewer in PR, where I saw my recommendations followed, I focused mainly on a thorough check of the sources, to see whether the article accurately reflects what's in them, whether the sources are the best that can be used for the purpose and are reliable (in particular for all the numerical values displayed);
  • in PR I also checked the (numerous) unit conversions and the application of most MOS:NUM rules;
  • I also checked prose, the current version reads well for me;
  • I also recommended wikicode cleanup, icluding unused parameters and spaces in cites;
  • the problems I see, after the comments by others above, as far as specified, appear to be mostly minor issues that can be dealt with by copyedit during the FAC review. --Rontombontom (talk) 11:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When looking at some of the incomplete citations noted by Fifelfoo, I took another closer look at the sources of the "Restrictions on surveys" section. I concluded that (1) for one sentence, none of the three sources used can be considered reliable (the passage in question in local media sources has the same origin, seems to have been retracted, and contradicts other more reliable sources), (2) more relevant text can be added on the basis of the other sources, (3) there are some additional, related reliable sources that can be added. After discussion with the editors, I went WP:BOLD and edited this section myself, so I am now significant contributor rather than reviewer on this single-paragraph section, too. --Rontombontom (talk) 20:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator Support Amended by Nikkimaria (talk) 13:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC) Disclosure, I am the nominator and an active editor. Rather than repeating them here, my general comments are in the nomination. I intended on doing this later, after the article received and responded to input here, and assumed that that would be more the process. Then I noticed an "oppose" the day after the nomination, (maybe that is the norm subject to change after the items are addressed?) which led me to do this earlier than planned. North8000 (talk) 12:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the nominator's support is implicit and doesn't have to be stated separately. --Rontombontom (talk) 12:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is implicit, and I've thus amended your declaration to clarify for delegates. As to the "oppose" issue: reviewers commonly change their declarations if/when their concerns are addressed to their satisfaction. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question/note to reviewers Is this response format of addressing you points individually, indented in-line OK with everyone? If not we could rearrange on someone's or everyone's.

Also, should we be striking out the items felt to be addressed? I was thinking that this is not necessary, and not as good as merely presenting the report/facts regarding the addressing of the items, but either way is fine. Thanks North8000 (talk) 13:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The rule is: "If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so after the reviewer's signature rather than striking out or splitting up the reviewer's text." In the special case of bullet points, it seems general usage to reply indented, I guess that doesn't count as splitting up. However, striking through should most certainly be left to the reviewer (as done by Canada Hky). --Rontombontom (talk) 13:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Image review

  • Infobox pic needs alt text for continuity with the rest.
    Done. Alternate text added. North8000 (talk) 12:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • All images are public domain with the exception of three which are published under the CC-BY-SA-3.0 (2) and the cc-by-sa-2.0 (1).
  • All images are properly tagged and categorized and there are no outstanding maintenance issues. Brad (talk) 21:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Considering Nikkimaria's almost three-week old Oppose on prose and MOS issues, I took a quick glance and found this:

Industry standards that built freshwater vessels to last more than a half-century made the Fitzgerald a young ship when it sank.

Standards don't build vessels, and if reviewers are supporting the article with glaring prose problems, there are problems. Please re-work the prose and come back in a few weeks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/SS_Edmund_Fitzgerald/archive2&oldid=1111867002"