Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/SS Princess Alice (1865)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

SS Princess Alice (1865)

[edit]
Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

Colleagues, I ask for your comments on the SS Princess Alice (1865) article. The Princess Alice was a pleasure steamer that operated in the Thames in 1860s and 70s; In September 1878 she was hit by a coal carrier and sank in around four minutes. Between 600 and 700 people died. There are strong echoes of the late 20th-century tragedy that befell the Marchioness. This has recently been re-written extensively and any comments and suggestions are very welcome. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 13:33, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Going over the article, it generally reads well; it provides a comprehensive, neutral and well-researched view of the subject - I would even go so far to say that in those attributes it probably meets the requirements of a Featured Article, and I would definitely recommend you at least submit it for Good Article review at some point. The prose is also quite good, though I made a quick adjustment to the lead in order to improve the flow.
The main issue that I see here is with the section organization. The greatest of these is the name "3 September 1878"; I feel the date isn't useful to section organization here, where the event took place over the course of just a few hours, and a title more relevant the section would be better - however, I can see this is a practice that is used elsewhere, so this may just come down to personal preference.
I would also recommend splitting the section on the aftermath up into sub-sections, as its current coverage is a bit to wide in scope. In particular, I would recommend splitting the inquest off.
I also wonder about the title - it appears that the steamer is only notable for the incident, and the article itself seems to cover the incident more than the steamer. It seems to me that a title such as "Sinking of the SS Princess Alice" would be better, such as in Sinking of MV Sewol.
Apart from this, I can not find any major improvement that can be done; perhaps some work can be done on the prose, and I am not certain about the inclusion of the fate of the Bywell Castle in the consequences, but apart from that it looks like an excellent piece of work; thank you. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 10:04, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your comments. I'll have a think about the title (it has been the same for several years). I don't think we have a clear policy on naming - the Mary Celeste is named for the ship, and there are others, but maybe the "Sinking of the SS Princess Alice" would be an improvement. I will wait until after the PR before taking any action on the change tho. Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 08:43, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from KJP1

[edit]

Another cracking read. Some comments/suggestions below:

Lead
  • "Princess Alice spent five years in Scotland" - sounds like she was on holiday! Perhaps, "was deployed (or similar) in Scotland for …"?
  • "was hit by Bywell Castle" - I don't know the naming conventions for ships, but should it be, here and elsewhere, "the Byewell Castle" etc.
  • "after the rowing boats used up to that point were deemed insufficient" - "after the rowing boats used up to that point had proved insufficient"?
Service
  • "In 1867 she was sold to the Waterman's Steam Packet Co. to travel on the River Thames" - this is only two years after construction but the lead says she was in Scotland for five?
3 September 1878
  • I'm fine with the section heading, by the way, but think NoCOBOL has a good point re. the article title, something like The Sinking of SS Alice may be an enhancement.
  • "During the journey the boat called at Blackwall, North Woolwich and Rosherville Gardens" - this makes me think a map of the route would be a helpful addition. I've no idea whether (Commons Category:Maps of the River Thames) has anything usable?
  • "the boat was carrying her full capacity of passengers, although no lists were kept, and the number of people on board is unknown" - given that the section above tells us she was licensed to carry 936 passengers max., perhaps - "the boat was carrying close to her full capacity of passengers, although no lists were kept, and the exact number of people on board is unknown"?
  • "He had insufficient experience of the Thames, or of helming a craft such as Princess Alice" - I'm assuming the he is Ayers, rather than Grinstead, but wasn't the error Grinstead's? Or was it a combined error. I wonder if this could be clarified.
  • "they also threw anything that would float for people to hold onto" - perhaps, "they also threw anything that would float into the water for people to hold onto"?
Aftermath
  • "the deceased could not be moved until the part of the inquest was complete" - not quite getting this. Perhaps, "the deceased could not be moved until the inquest had been opened and adjourned"?
  • "He focussed his proceedings on the William Beechley, the fist body that had been positively identified" - "He focussed his proceedings on William Beechley, the first body to have been positively identified"?
  • "their stories of the path taken by Princess Alice differed considerably. although most pleasure craft coming upriver on the Thames would round Tripcock Point and head for the northern bank to take advantage of more favourable currents." - this isn't quite working. Split to two sentences. "their stories of the path taken by Princess Alice differed considerably. Most pleasure craft coming upriver on the Thames would round Tripcock Point and head for the northern bank to take advantage of more favourable currents. Had the Princess Alice had done that, Bywell Castle...".
  • "Specific charges were lain against Captain Harrison" - "laid"?
Consequences
  • Does any source specifically link the improved approach to sewage purification to the tragedy? If not, is it a Consequence, or merely an event that followed?
  • "found that these were insufficient for the requirements of the role, and that these should be" - "found that these were insufficient for the requirements of the role and that they should be"?
  • Re. the loss of the Bywell Castle, I'm again with NoCOBOL in that I don't think it's a consequence. Perhaps this, and the sewage issue above, could be addressed by renaming the section, Subsequent events, or something similar?

Looking in fine shape for an FAC run. KJP1 (talk) 13:22, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK, last section renamed. Thanks very much for all of these. As you will have seen from the ping, I've opened the discussion on the page move, so hopefully that should be relatively clear cut enough for a quick move: we shall see the general feeling shortly. I've also put in a request for a map. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:02, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]
  • It might be helpful to those unfamiliar with the fine points of Thames geography to mention she was on her homeward journey.
Done - SchroCat (talk) 19:35, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "changes were made to the release of the treatment of sewage" suspect some error here.
Done - SchroCat (talk) 19:35, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The assertion in the infobox that the craft was named for the Isle of Bute seems unsourced. It could have been the earl. Ditto Princess Alice as unsourced.
Struck Bute (I can't find a source at all); Alice now sourced in the text. - SchroCat (talk) 19:35, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In recounting the final journey, it might be well to advise, at some early moment, when sunset was.
It's not recorded, unfortunately. - SchroCat (talk) 19:40, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[1] - I'm not sure whether we would consider that site a reliable cite, but determining sunset on a given day and a year is relatively trivial. Even if that source isn't acceptable, there will be one out there than is. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 14:17, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks NoCOBOL. Looking at the site it seems reliable enough, so I've added it in: the source review at FAC will pick up on it if there are problems.
Wehwalt, there's only one reference to sunset in the article, and that's near the beginning of a long quote. I've added it as a footnote at the end of the quote, which should cover anyone's questions - we give a more exact timeframe in the relevant section, so there should be no problems now. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:18, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You appear to refer to the vessel both as a boat and a ship at various points. Is there risk of some nautical expert descending wrathfully on us?
Hmmm. A possibility, given my ignorance on the point! Lyndaship, you have been helpful and knowledgeable on the talk page: are we OK to keep using both as a boat and a ship, or would these be considered different? - SchroCat (talk) 19:35, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mmmmm. You'll find a lot of disagreement about when a boat becomes a ship in nautical circles. My preference in this instance would be ship but I wouldn't change it if it was boat. I suppose a guide would be what it was called in your sources (but I wouldn't be surprised if they disagree too) and frequently boat is used as a slang term for a ship (sludgeboats for example). I think the important thing is to be consistent in the article - always a ship or always a boat. Sorry I can't be definitive, you could try asking at WP:SHIPS but you might well not get a definitive answer there either Lyndaship (talk) 19:54, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for the input. I'll move them all to ship (or vessel or the name), just to make sure we're at least consistent. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:15, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it worth dropping a footnote on first usage of Dix to explain that, I suppose, that is the only name known?
First name added - mea culpa - I thought I'd already put it. - SchroCat (talk) 19:35, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was there any litigation or information on insurance settlements, both between the ship owners and also actions by next of kin/survivors? Was there compensation paid?
There were some legal ramifications: I'll add those shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 20:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Now added. - SchroCat (talk) 21:19, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's all I see right now. I'll give it a second look in a day or so.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From TR

[edit]

A very meagre gleaning from me:

  • 3 September 1878
    • "followed the normal watermen's practice" - as opposed to the pervy ones? Perhaps "followed the watermen's normal practice"
  • Consequences and later events
    • "a series of six sludge boats were ordered to ship effluent into the North Sea": not sure what this means. Were there six existing sludge boats that were ordered to ship effluent or did the authorities order six new sludge boats for that purpose?
    • "a global adoption of emergency signalling lights on boats across the globe, both…" – a lot of globes, and I don't think you want the comma before "both".
    • "St Mary Magdalene Woolwich, the local parish church also later installed a stained glass memorial window" – to me it doesn't feel quite right to say that the church installed something. I think the PCC or someone installed it in the church.

And that's my lot. I cannot tell you how much I enjoyed this article, because I didn't, but it is nonetheless a fine and comprehensive account of an event that needs the proper coverage you have given it. Please ping me come FAC. Tim riley talk 19:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/SS_Princess_Alice_(1865)/archive1&oldid=882714043"