SS Edmund Fitzgerald

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
. I've listed this article for peer review because… Our goal is to achieve FA and then article of the day on November 10th, the day of her sinking. We have tried to put ourselves through several tough self-reviews on this, and then asked for and received a thorough / tough review when we achieved Good Article status. We welcome any review to point out anything we missed, plus we're least sure of ourselves (and request review) in the following areas:

1. Prose. While we think that the wording is precise, we're not sure about its prose
2. Reference formatting
3. Should we drop the "Due South" section due to weak referencing? (we took that material out)

We have 3 currently active editors, 2 of them very active, ready to respond to any feedback.

Thanks, North8000 (talk) 20:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brad101

First a question: Are you intending to try for FA directly from the now GA rating? That can be a tough jump. There is a ships A-class review which is supposed to be a stepping stone to FA. But this peer review will help before going to that A-class review. Brad (talk) 23:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Brad010. We hadn't thought about that explicitly. I guess that one thing that did occur to me is that 3/4 of the noteworthiness and content of this is about the sinking and investigations and related factors and only 1/4 about what in a typical ship article, and so I had some thought that trying to use the same outlines. / routines etc from a ship article here might be a square peg in a round hole situation. North8000 (talk) 00:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would advise waiting for a review here and then deciding whether FAC is a feasible objective. From my experience the Milhist A criteria, while excellent, are slightly different from the FA criteria, and might be thought more of a parallel than a stepping stone. Brianboulton (talk) 00:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Images need alt text. See Wikipedia:Alternative text for images

  Done. Hope it is correct.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 20:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The lead section for an article this size should have 3-4 good sized paragraphs that summarize the main points of the article.

  Will work on it.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 18:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  North Carolina-class battleship is a good example of an FA quality lead. Brad (talk) 19:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Done (I think) What do y'all think of the lead now? North8000 (talk) 03:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Much better. I noticed you ref'd the strong statements in the lead which is good but the last paragraph needs work and expansion. Probably a good idea to expand on the pop culture impact but don't get too carried away. Brad (talk) 21:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• More information on the pre-sinking career of the ship would be nice though I suspect sources don't reveal much. That's all I have time for today. Brad (talk) 16:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Working on it.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 18:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Done, I think.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 00:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I like this very much. You've added a soft and human side to the ship such as the Captain entertaining people while going through the locks. Things like this are important as they don't concentrate on the gloom and doom. Brad (talk) 21:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The list of crewmembers may cause trouble with WP:NOTMEMORIAL. The best thing to do would be to work their names into the body of the article where possible and where warranted. Pointing to an external link of all crewmembers would solve the problem.

  I changed one of the external links so that it takes the viewer to the crew list. I won't delete the list from the article until other editors weigh in.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 20:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Crew list has been replaced with a paragraph.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 02:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Also very good but I would now suggest that you take that paragraph and combine it with the last paragraph in the 'Search' section. Eliminating the crew section because it's only a paragraph. But also the mention of Lightfoot's song seems out of place in the search section. That should be eliminated. Brad (talk) 21:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  My first thought was to put the paragraph about the crew in the search section. I'll move it to that section. We can move Lightfoot's song to the memorial section.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 22:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Counter-opinion I think WP:NOTMEMORIAL is about article notability, not about any RS-sourced content within an article that fulfils notability requirements with the RS coverage of its main subject. My point against a crew list table would be that it is of little relevance for most readers and just takes up space. However, there is a solution to that: see Help:Collapsing. The above is not a recommendation to the article's editors without consensus, so if you think that's acceptable, please say so. --Rontombontom (talk) 16:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. I think all points above were good. Particularly the focus on what is useful to the reader. I think that the replacement paragraph kept what is of interest to the reader. North8000 (talk) 12:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• High quality reliable sources are required for FA. Does boatnerd meet the requirement? Brad (talk) 19:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Boatnerd aka Great Lakes & Seaway Shipping has already been questioned as a reliable source during one of the reviews. Has it been accepted as a source in other FA ship articles? Do you think it meets the requirement? Alternative sources will likely cover it anyway. Please let us know your thoughts.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 20:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Deleted Boatnerd citations.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 02:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  One remaining Boatnerd citation - possible deletion after talk page discussion.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 16:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I think you made the right choice removing that source. I've seen similar sources get totally gunned down at FACs. Brad (talk) 21:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Resolved. The last Boatnerd citation has been replaced with a different source.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 00:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Name consistency: The name of the ship throughout the article is not consistent. There is Fitzgerald or Edmund Fitzgerald used randomly. What was the most common way of referring to the ship? Also, the possessive of Fitzgerald should be ''Fitzgerald''(('))s which gives you Fitzgerald's instead of using ''Fitzgerald's'' which gives you Fitzgerald's. The 's should not be italicized; only the proper name of the ship should be. Brad (talk) 22:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  On your first point, couldn't one say that the full name is Edmund Fitzgerald, and Fitzgerald is a legit shortening? Like if there was an article about Larry Wentworth, you might use his full name occasionally in the article, but mostly just refer to his as "Wentworth"? Sincerely, North8000 (talk)

  The point is about consistency. Shortening the name is natural but it shouldn't be Fitzgerald and then a few sentences later Edmund Fitzgerald. One method followed for another article was in each section upon the first mention of the name to use the full name and then after that the shortened version. Repeating the process throughout the entire article. Brad (talk) 01:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I went through the article and tried to catch all the possessives of Fitzgerald. I revised to use Edmund Fitzgerald and Arthur M. Anderson at the start of each section (but not subsections. I didn't address naming conformity in the lead as another editor has recommended revision of the lead.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 15:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth

This is very interesting, well-written, well-organized, well-sourced, and apparently comprehensive. I made quite a few minor proofing changes as I went. The article is not far from being ready for FAC, but the images are a bit thin, and some of the licenses look shaky. I also note some Manual of Style considerations in my comments below.

Heads and subheads

• WP:MOSHEAD says the heads should generally avoid referring to the subject of the article or to higher-level headings. For this reason, I'd suggest removing "Fitzgerald" from the two heads that use it.

Corrected.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 22:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Some of the heads and subheads should be more telegraphic. "Changes to Great Lakes shipping practice after Fitzgerald sinking" could become "Changes to shipping practice". "Flooding of cargo hold from ineffective hatch closures or collapsed hatch covers" could become "Cargo-hold flooding". "Three sisters/rogue wave theory" would be better as "Rogue wave theory". (The ambiguous front slash is generally best avoided.) "Contributing factors to sinking" could become "Contributing factors".

Corrected.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 22:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overlinking

• Generally, it's enough to link a term once in the lead and once in the main text. I would not link taconite multiple times, just on the first instance. I don't see much in the way of overlinking, but I noticed this one, and I'm pretty sure there are a few others.

Done, also removed multiple links for Whitefish Bay.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 22:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Captions

• Captions consisting solely of a sentence fragment do not take a terminal period.

Fixed.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 22:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Construction

• "When Mrs. Edmund Fitzgerald... " - Wikipedia generally avoids "Mrs.", "Mr.", and "Ms.". It would be better to give her full name and identify her as Edmund Fitgerald's wife. If you can't find her first name, "When Edmund Fitgerald's wife... " would do.

Done.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 00:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History

• "the Fitzgerald again struck a lock's wall along with losing its original bow anchor in the Detroit River." - More smooth might be "the Fitzgerald again struck a lock's wall and lost its original bow anchor in the Detroit River."

Corrected.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 00:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Final voyage and wreck

• "NTSB report probable tracks of Edmund Fitzgerald and Arthur M. Anderson." - This doesn't quite make sense as written, and NTSB should be spelled out. Suggestion: National Transportation Safety Board chart showing probable tracks of Edmund Fitzgerald and Arthur M. Anderson

Done.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 22:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "on the afternoon of Sunday, November 9, 1975" - Dates do not normally include the day of the week. Ditto for other dates in the article.

Done. Also checked other dates in article.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 03:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Search

• "They instructed him to call back on channel 12... ". - Coast Guard is singular and should be matched with "it" rather than "they". Since "It instructed him" sounds a bit awkward, I might say something like "Responders instructed him... " or something like that. After the first plural, the "they" pronouns will make sense. Ditto for other mismatches between Coast Guard and "they" later in the article.

Corrected this paragraph. Still need to check the rest of the article--Wpwatchdog (talk) 21:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Checked the rest of the article and revised as needed.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 17:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "the upbound saltwater vessel Nanfri and was told that they... " - Same problem. "Nanfri" is an "it". In this case, I would use "the upbound saltwater vessel Nanfri and was told that it... ". And later in the sentence, "its radar".

Corrected this paragraph.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 21:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Legal settlement

• "Fitzgerald author Hemming" - I'd give his full name here and describe him in some other way; "Fitzgerald author" is a bit misleading. Perhaps "author Robert Hemming" or "historian Robert Hemming"?

Done.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 21:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1975 discovery

• "The wreck was first located on November 14 approximately 17 miles (15 nmi; 27 km) from the entrance of Whitefish Bay at 46°59.91′N 85°06.6′W / 46.9985°N 85.11°W / 46.9985; -85.11 very near the international boundary in Canadian waters[31] at a depth of 530 feet (160 m) by a U.S. Navy aircraft with on-board magnetic anomaly detector equipment,[53] normally used to detect submarines." - Too complex. Suggestion: "A U.S. Navy aircraft equipped to detect magnetic anomalies usually associated with submarines found the wreck on November 14, 1975. It was located about 17 miles (15 nmi; 27 km) from the entrance of Whitefish Bay, very near the international boundary in Canadian waters at a depth of 530 feet (160 m)." I think I'd leave the coordinates out of this sentence since they are already provided at the top of the page.

Corrected.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 21:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have some concern over co-ordinates, implied co-ordinate accuracy and sourcing for coordinates in the article. The one at the top is basically unsourced, I think placed by the coordinates project folks. I asked at that project talk page for where it came from / sourcing and wasn't able to get an answer. If this one was sourced, I would hate to give that up. I'll see if that was an on-line source for location then we can discuss from there. North8000 (talk) 02:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, they were in the NTSB report on page 2. The coordinates at the top were the same except missing a digit which I fixed. I'm going to see if I can cite the coordinates at the top.North8000 (talk) 03:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No luck. I'm not comfortable that such a significant statement (the location of the wreck) is not cited. If there are no objections, I'm going to try to put it in as text somewhere with a cite to the NTSB report. North8000 (talk) 13:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does make for awkward reading in a sentence. How about putting it in the info box with a citation?--Wpwatchdog (talk) 14:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good if it's doable. Sincerely North8000 (talk) 19:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The |Ships note parameter in the infobox can accommodate an explanatory note for just about anything. Being sunk is an unusual "general characteristic", but maybe that is not a sticking point. Finetooth (talk) 21:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is done North8000 (talk) 22:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surveys

• "The GLSHS conducted an unlicensed side-scan sonar survey of the wreck of the Fitzgerald in 2002.[76][77][78] Mike Simonson of Wisconsin Public Radio reported. The director of the Great Lakes Shipwreck Museum on Whitefish Point near the sinking site admitted to an unlicensed dive in 2002. So earlier this year, the Ontario Ministry of Culture warned him and anyone else to stop commercial dives to the Fitzgerald." - This paragraph is unclear in a couple of ways. I think there should be a comma after "2002) instead of a terminal period. Also "So earlier this year" is confusing. The specific year should be substituted for "this year", and I would drop the "so" so that the sentence says something like "In X, the Ontario Ministry... ".

Done. This was a direct quote but the punctuation needed correction. I clarified the year by including it in brackets within the quote.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 14:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "a $1 million Canadian fine" - For clarity, would something like "a $1 million fine in Canadian dollars" be more clear?

Done.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 14:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rogue wave theory

• ""hit by two 30 to 35 foot (9.1 to 11 m) seas about 6:30 p.m., one burying the after cabins and damaging a lifeboat by pushing it right down onto the saddle. The second wave of this size, perhaps 35 foot (11 m), came over the bridge deck." - The quotation should not include metric conversions unless they were part of the original. In other words, quotations should be exact.

Done North8000 (talk) 02:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Structural failure

• "resulted in a L/D slenderness ratio" - Spell out "L/D", which readers may not otherwise understand.

Done North8000 (talk) 01:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of instrumentation

• Link "freeboard" to Freeboard (nautical) here on first use rather than later in the article?

Done North8000 (talk) 01:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to Great Lakes shipping practice

• "in each man’s quarters and in his customary work station" - Do women ever work on these ships? Is "man" the right word?

Done. I neutralized the wording. I think that this was a needed fix rather than being too PC. North8000 (talk) 02:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Memorials

• "On every November 10 the Split Rock Lighthouse in Silver Bay, Minnesota emits a light in honor of the Edmund Fitzgerald." - I would merge this one-sentence orphan paragraph with the paragraph above it.

Done North8000 (talk) 01:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Musical and theatre tributes

• I'd merge the last three short paragraphs in this subsection to avoid a choppy look and feel.

Done North8000 (talk) 01:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

• These generally look fine, but citation 178 lists an URL (canoe.ca) as the publisher when it should be Canoe, Inc. URLs are generally not the same as the publisher's name. You can usually find the publisher's name at the bottom of web pages or on the "home" or "about" page.

Done. This was actually citation 179.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 14:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Citation 135 is incomplete. Citations to web sources should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, URL, and date of most recent access if all of these are known or can be found.

Done. This was actually citation 136.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 14:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

• "Newsnet5.com" should be replaced by "E.W. Scripps Co." in the Johnson entry. Ditto for other entries in which the URL has been used instead of the publisher's name.

Done.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 17:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I would spell out rather than abbreviate the state names; e.g., "Michigan" instead of "MI".

Done.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 17:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Should Diver Magazine appear in italics?

Fixed.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 17:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further reading

• National Geographic should appear in italics.

Done.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 22:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images

• File:SS Edmund Fitzgerald scale model.jpg displaces an edit button and would look better on the left, where it would aim into the page rather than out. To make room for it, I would simply merge the orphan lead sentence of the section with the "Weather forecasting" subsection.

Done. Moved image to left so that edit button is not displaced.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 16:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Edmund Fitzgerald Trackline.jpg has problems with its license page. The source links are dead; thus fact-checkers cannot easily verify the license. Also, NTSB should be spelled out as National Transportation Safety Board; most readers will not recognize the abbreviation by itself.

Corrected caption. Still need to check license page.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 22:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected license.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 16:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The source link for File:Edmund Fitzgerald Lifeboat.jpg is dead, and the description page is flagged with a "category" warning. This and the other image-description pages should be made as complete and tidy as possible to prepare for FAC, where they will be looked at closely. I did not check all of the license pages; these couple of things turned up on a spot check.

Contacted author of file for clarification. Will replace image if not able to clarify license.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 16:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 17:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other

• The dab tool in the toolbox at the top of this review page finds one dab, to The Blade.

Corrected.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 14:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 20:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ! 22:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)North8000 (talk) 03:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rontombontom

Some further notes.

• Infobox: complete converts, expand or wikilink "oa" abbrevation. Done

  Done.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 15:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Speed, power, too. ( Done) --Rontombontom (talk) 16:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Done now, I think.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 01:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Lede: I think the first sentence should be changed in accordance with WP:MOSBEGIN: it should refer to the sinking as the most significant connected event rather than the launch date. Done

  Revision made to start the lead with the sinking. Should SS Edmund Fitzgerald be preceded with "the" at the start of the lead? Please don't hesitate to improve this revision if needed.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 16:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Huh... ack. Now you'll hate me for this, (I hate to say it after you worked so much), but I think most of your original lede should be restored. I only suggested a change to the first sentence (and a resulting change to the second to incorporate what the first should drop). The guideline here is for something like pyramide structure in journalism: first sentence, lede, article body expand on the subject in three steps. You define the subject in the first sentence, and that includes in this case the ship's nicknames and the fact that its sinking was the most important event. Then from the next sentence of the lede, you continue with a brief summary of the article, that is start with the launch in 1958 and end with the paragraph on theories, as before. (It's good if you read WP:MOSBEGIN, but the previous lede was already in line with it apart from the end of the first sentence.) --Rontombontom (talk) 16:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree! Possibly revert the changes to the lead and then just tweak that one sentence? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  No problem. I think I got it back to the former lead (I had to do it manually). I suggest that the first sentence include the date November 10 since our goal is to achieve FA on November 10.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 17:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I now slightly re-worded it, moving the launch date to the second sentence and adding to the first that it was already known for its size before the sinking made it famous. You can of course re-word it again if it doesn't sound good (enough). --Rontombontom (talk) 09:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Also lede, second paragraph start: "The Fitzgerald set sail" ...on its final voyage. Also, Fitzgerald in Italics. Done

  Done.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 15:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Only the Italics :-) Also, I forgot to note on first occasion: the "set sail" figure of speech, talking of a non-sailship, is probably against WP:IDIOM. (English is not my first language, though, so if "set sail" is not a figure of speech but an expression that lost its original literal meaning like "ride" when applied for vehicles, forget it.) ( Done) --Rontombontom (talk) 18:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I think it might be a figure of speech but I revised it anyway.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 01:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Wind speeds, wave heights: use convert. Done

  Done.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 15:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Construction & History: Since the Construction section contains more events and context than technical details, I suggest to include it as the first sub-section of History, and to put the details on operation into a sub-section titled Operation or something. Done

  Moved text pertaining to events to history section, added subsections in history section to reflect ship's career.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 01:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry for not being clear; what I meant was to include the entire unchanged Construction section as a sub-section of History. In your current edit, the first paragraph of Construction is still mostly events, and removing those would reduce the section to a stub. I checked some of the FA-rated shipwreck articles. Take a look at the sectioning of AHS Centaur, HMS Ark Royal (91), Japanese battleship Yamato and USS Massachusetts (BB-2). I think the best solution would be: restore the original content of Construction, then rename it "Design and construction", and also rename History to "Service history".

  I renamed the construction subsection and moved some text around. I didn't rename to "Service history" because the history section also includes the "Search" and "Legal settlement" sections. I hope this works better.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 15:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, it now looks fine with me, it's how I originally recommended. I just hope it will be okay with later WikiProject Ships reviewers, too, because a separate Design and construction section seems quite common in ship articles. --Rontombontom (talk) 15:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Rather than note that "sometime" sounds strange, I went ahead and edited the sentence on the naming myself, by moving it to the paragraph on the launch. Which leads me to one issue I wanted to ask eventually: why is the launch in the Career section (if I am not mistaken on-board construction still goes on after a ship's launch), and why does the paragraph on the contract with Oglebay Norton Corporation precede it? If there is no special reason, IMHO the paragraph on the launch and sea trials would be better placed at the end of the Design and construction section. ( Done) --Rontombontom (talk) 20:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I moved the launch and sea trial to the Design and construction subsection and rearranged paragraphs. If this doesn't make sense, please revise it.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 18:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Further, I just noticed that "Contributing factors" is a main section. IMHO it logically belongs under "Theories on the cause of sinking"; that is "Contributing factors" and all its sub-sections would be better moved one level up. --Rontombontom (talk) 10:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I think as long as it remains a section we are structurally okay. They are different than a primary cause. If there's any minus, it's that having a lot of material, the level 3 and level 4 headings sort of look the same which might make it harder to follow. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Perhaps I should have approached this by focusing on the titles. The section title "Theories on the cause of sinking" doesn't exclude theories on non-primary causes, while the section title "Contributing factors" is not fit as a top-level section title (the first-time reader of the table of contents might ask, factors contributing to what? the SS Edmund Fitzgerald?). I'm not against keeping the two main sections separate, but then the titles of both have to be modified. ( Done) --Rontombontom (talk) 19:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I wasn't implying a particular answer (nor that I even have one) , just talking. "Cause" is actually a more complex term than one would think. Accidents are a chain of events and also a combination of factors, and that's the simpler case (unlike this one) where the important stuff is known. I think that the common meaning of cause is the 1-3 major unusual things that made this happen. Certainly one is the waves (caused by the wind). I think that the items under theories of causes would also be at this level. Again, still just talking.  :-) North8000 (talk) 21:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  How about changing the title to "Theories on primary cause of sinking"?--Wpwatchdog (talk) 14:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, something in that direction, and the other "Theories on contributing factors of sinking" or something. Looking at the table of contents again, top-level section 2 is probably clearer as "Wreck discovery and surveys", with the "Surveys" subsection then changed to "Underwater surveys". ( Done) --Rontombontom (talk) 15:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Revised as recommended.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 16:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• In the Construction section, and later in the Theories on the cause of sinking section, some paragraphs have multiple cites only at the end, although significant claims are made in separate sentences. The specific source of each claim should be made identifiable. (See WP:INTEGRITY) Done

  I added more specific citations to the above sections. I can add more if needed.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 23:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Great work! But, having followed some source links, I give you more... in the External links section, remove all links already used as references. ( Done) Also, although all the images there seem to be incorporated in the article already, you may want to add the interwiki Commons link (in the form ((Commons category|Edmund Fitzgerald)), placed right below the section title, before the first bullet point). --Rontombontom (talk) 23:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I removed the extra external links. Does the interwiki Commons link go in every section that has an image?--Wpwatchdog (talk) 00:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  No, it goes in External links only. (For the guideline mentioning this see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (layout)#External links.) I don't know why I bothered with the specialised commons category template, however; ((Commons)) works fine.

  This interwiki link is most useful for readers if Commons has more images related to the subject than included in the article. So it's up to you to decide whether the Commons link makes sense (I would put it in for exampe if you would upload images in the future which may not find use in the article or replace ones now in the article). --Rontombontom (talk) 09:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Converts: if round numbers aren't rounded but are to be taken as precise numbers (i.e. 730/75 feet limits), fix conversion precision (i.e. ((Convert|75|ft|m|1)) resulting in 75 feet (22.9 m)). Done

  Done North8000 (talk) 13:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  The limit numbers come up gain in the text; I also wonder about the deadweight tonnage (infobox) vs. the carrying capacity (second paragraph of Construction section). ( Done) --Rontombontom (talk) 13:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• In the third paragraph of the Construction section, a number of the technical terms could probably be wikilinked.

  With subsequent revisions, it's now unclear where this now refers to. I checked that general area and it looks like this might be done. North8000 (talk) 13:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, my bad. I meant the paragraph on the ship's interior. ( Done) --Rontombontom (talk) 13:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I wikilinked in the paragraph about the ship's interior. If I overdid it, please revise as needed.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 18:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Cites: on many places, there is no space between a sentence-end closing ref tag and the first letter of the next sentence. At some places however, there is space between multiple references. In the second paragraph of the current History section lead, the order of references 22 and 24 should be the opposite. Done

  I see that this was mentioned repeatedly during the GA review, too. Therefore I suspect that editors tried to catch these by simply reading through. So I suggest instead to use the browser's search function -- one search for "> <ref" to catch the extra spaces, and one long search each for "ref/>" and ""/>" to catch the lack of spaces. --Rontombontom (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I did that at the time but since then there has been a lot of new work. We'll do that again. North8000 (talk) 17:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Fortunately a bot did it now, also catching a lot of other minor typos. --Rontombontom (talk) 12:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Shouldn't the Fitzgerald and the Anderson be preceded by a "the" consistently? (I'm not sure, but "Fitzgerald was ahead of Anderson at the time" sounds strange.) Done

  Checking the relevant WikiProjekt Ships guideline, leaving away the "the" is entirely okay -- so it is just me after all. However, another guideline says that when using pronouns, both "she" and "its" is okay, but one article should be consistent in using just one. I suggest the replacement of "she" (two occurences) and "her" (four occurences) with the neutral equivalents. Done

  I went through the article and tried to precede the ship names with "the" where appropriate. The inconsistencies evolved from a number of editors contributing over a number of years. I believe that this same point came up in another review and I tried to correct it. I ran a search and tried to replace "she" and "her". However, it is my habit to unconsciously refer to ships in the feminine form so it is hard for me to catch it in the article. If don't you mind, please correct the "she" and "her" uses that I didn't catch. Thank you for all your ongoing help.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 16:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  No "she"/"her" remain :-) For the record, I proposed the replacement of feminine forms because those seemed less frequent after a cursory look; but replacing all the "it"/"its" with "she"/"her" instead would have been just as good. --Rontombontom (talk) 16:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Furthermore, in the Final voyage and wreck section, the second sentence of the fourth paragraph (which includes the second "she") should probably get a clearer wording. Does "including" refer to the top-side damage or to the report? I take the loss of two vent covers and some railings was the top-side damage and list is a direct consequence of taking on water, so I suggest a pairing that way. ( Done) --Rontombontom (talk) 10:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I see that was solved, too. --Rontombontom (talk) 16:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Times: p.m., pm, PM all occur in the article; WP:MOSNUM recommends the lower-case versions, I suggest "p.m." everywhere for consistency (except for quotes; there keep the original formatting of course). Done

  Done. Fixed one PM in the lead.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 15:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  But only with one dot, and the "pm" remained on two locations; I fixed those myself. --Rontombontom (talk) 16:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Wind speeds: no dash between number and unit ("knot") unless it's an adjective ("x-knot wind"). Done

  I see you began to deal with that as part of the other unit conversion issue. You'll hate me for this, but after the recent knot->mph changes, I realised there is another thing to change: the consistent unit abbrevations. On the first occurence of units outside the infobox, use "|abbr=none" to display all units as written-out words. On all other occurences, due to the now cycling kn-mph-km/h units, it's best to use "|abbr=on". ( Done) --Rontombontom (talk) 13:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for your "you'll hate me for this" concern/note, but your comments are much appreciated. As an aside, I basically just kept those three way units......not sure if they are good or bad. But just clarifying, what you are saying is that each unit be spelled out the first time it's used (not counting the info box) and then abbreviated for every subsequent use in the article? Thanks. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Let me spell the problem out. The default behaviour of the convert template is to spell out the original unit and abbreviate the conversions. That is, "((convert|49|mph|kn))" produces "49 miles per hour (43 kn)", while "((convert|43|kn|mph))" produces "43 knots (49 mph)". When units are cycled to stay faithful to sources, but a reader looks only at the unit s/he is most familiar with, the back-and-forth change between spelled-out and abbreviated unit can be annoying. So, it's best to tell the template to keep both original and converted units in the same form. "((convert|49|mph|kn|abbr=none))" produces "49 miles per hour (43 knots)", while "((convert|49|mph|kn|abbr=on))" produces "49 mph (43 kn)".

  Now, according to MOS:NUM#Unit names and symbols, using unit abbreviations in prose is acceptable when they occur many times, but they should be spelled out on first occurrence. So for units you used frequently, I suggest to use "|abbr=none" on first occurence in prose (like in the lede for the damned speed triplets), and "|abbr=on" everywhere else.

  A final note -- sorry if you realised this already, I just want to go sure; the out of place dashes I noted in the original bullet point are produced by the "|adj=on" parameters (see: "((convert|49|kn|mph|adj=on))" produces "49-knot (56 mph)"). --Rontombontom (talk) 15:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I think I did most of them, but I have a couple questions on the template conversions:

  • Is use of abbreviations mandated? When the first unit in the conversion (which is the one that is 'in the sentence') is very short (like "feet" , "knots") what do you think about leaving the full word in there. It seems so much easier to read / flow nicer, and the abbreviation just shortens it by like 2 characters
  • Is use of the "adj" feature (which creates the dash) mandated when the word is use as an adjective? Often leavign it out seems the norm. 35 foot waves vs. 35-foot waves.

  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Regarding the adjective dashhyphen, yes, it is mandated when units are spelled out (see WP:HYPHEN); lack of use is down to sloppiness or (if you refer to usage on Wikipedia specifically) unfamiliarity with the template, I think.

  Regarding not abbreviating short units for readability, well... I proposed to do it for all units for the sake of consistency, but now I am not so sure anymore. In addition, I'm not from an Anglo-Saxon country and my default is metric units, so I may be mistaken in my assumption that the back-and-forth between "miles per hour" and "mph" is as disconcerting for US readers as one between "kilometres per hour" and "km/h" would be in my eyes. So I asked a more experienced reviewer to weigh in on that. (Oh, and apologies in advance if this will result in you having to redo all the converts again...) --09:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks. Just to clarify, the idea that I am suggesting/asking about is to (after the initial use) to:

  consistently abbreviate the long units (eg "mph" would always be "mph") everywhere, consistently use the full word for the first unit unit in each conversion when it is short (e.g. feet and knots), and consistently let the template abbreviate converted units. So it would always be "at a depth of 530 feet (160 m)" rather than "at a depth of 530 ft (160 m)"

  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:00, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Ship personnel: in the Search section, I suggest wikilinking. ( Done) In the Infobox, I wouldn't know if Wikiproject Ships or Shipwrecks has a line on this, but "hands" is probably better replaced with a more widely used and understood term. Done

  Done.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 15:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Good job; didn't expect that so many had Wikipedia articles! --Rontombontom (talk) 16:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Waves and weather section: 43.45 knot is a conversion of 50 mph in the source with unjustified precision. Done

  Done.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 15:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Now it converted to 49 mph... Scanning the whole section, I find more examples of suspect decimal precision speeds in knots where the source likely used whole numbers in mph. I think the correct action in this situation would be to have mph as the default value and use convert to generate knot and km/h. ( Done) --Rontombontom (talk) 16:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Waves and weather section: dot missing from Arthur M. Anderson. Done

  Done.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 15:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Breaking apart section: the first paragraph looks like WP:OR. It should be sourced thoroughly, and sourced in its connection to (theories about) the Fitzgerald case. Done

  I think you're right. I'll take a try at that. North8000 (talk) 17:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I changed the paragraph with material from the Coast Guard and NTSB investigations. Should the breaking apart section be moved to the structural failure section since that was why it was considered during the investigations?--Wpwatchdog (talk) 18:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  It definitely should not remain as a separate theory. I'd say either combine it into structural failure as you suggested, or make it a part of the introduction in the "theories" section. North8000 (talk) 19:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  That looks good. By the way, another style recommendation: while WP:MOSQUOTE allows the use of HTML blockquote, IMHO the framed blockquotes produced by Template:Quotation look nicer, and the quoted-ness of the quoted text is more obvious. ( Done) --Rontombontom (talk) 19:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  That's a nice template! I redid all of the block quotes.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 20:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Lack of watertight bulkheads section: The first sentence, "Great Lakes freighters lack of watertight bulkheads in the cargo holds made them like "motorized super barges" when comparing their construction to ocean-going vessels." is jarring (and an apostrophe is missing from freighters'). Something like "The lack of watertight bulkheads in the cargo holds made the design of Great Lakes freighters more similar to that of motorized barges than that of ocean-going vessels." would be better. Also, use "motorized super barges" only if it is in the source. Done

  Done using the above sentence. Thank you.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 23:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Lack of instrumentation section: was the Mark Twain reference in a source? If so, add citation, if not, this is WP:OR. Done

  The Mark Twain reference was from the source. I added a citation.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 20:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Complacency section, last paragraph, "It was countered": by whom (if named in the source)? (See WP:WEASEL) Done

  Revised to say who countered.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 23:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Changes to Great Lakes shipping practice section, point 8: Reference 182 is a dead link (probably Thompson 1994?) ( Done); and does the original really use both "U.S." and "US"? ( Done) Also, is there a date (year) for the start of the practice? Done

  The dead link of the now Ref 181 was repaired by Redrose64. --Rontombontom (talk) 14:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I corrected the quote by deleting "of all US ships" that was not included in the original. I haven't been able to locate a source that specifies the year the Coast Guard started the pre-November inspections.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 22:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Review end)--Rontombontom (talk) 12:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the detailed list that will improve the article. We will work on the corrections.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 14:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I may add more after a more thorough reading. I forgot to say that I found it interesting and very thorough. Meanwhile, a minor formatting suggestion: use "*:" to indent replies to bullet points. --Rontombontom (talk) 17:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ثث

Further Finetooth comment

Rontombontom asked me to weigh in with an opinion about the conversions and abbreviations. In articles to which I'm the main contributor, I rely on the conversion template without the |abbr parameter. If I have to add something by hand that the conversion template can't deal with, I maintain the same pattern as the conversion template throughout the article; that is, I spell out the primary units and abbreviate the others. I also link uncommon units on first use. I use the |adj=on parameter to add a hyphen to things like "30-mile-per-hour (48 km/h)" wind, or sometimes I add it by hand. Doing the conversions in this way makes the articles internally consistent without running afoul (I think) of the Manual of Style (MOS). My method has, so far at least, survived scrutiny at PR, GAN, and FAC. On the other hand, when I'm reviewing, as opposed to nominating or seeking advice, I defer to the nominator or main author if what he or she is doing is internally consistent and is based on a rationale that seems reasonable to me. If this were "my" article, I'd stick with spelling out the primary units and abbreviating the rest, for double or triple conversions. In the lede, for example, I'd use "730 feet (222.5 m) long and 75 feet (22.9 m) wide. I wouldn't link "foot" or "meter" because they are so common, but if another editor felt they should be linked, I'd link them on first use. I'd render the next conversion in the lede like this: "with sustained winds of 58 miles per hour (50 kn; 93 km/h). Hope this helps. Finetooth (talk) 20:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should add something about the rounding. If the 750 feet is a precise measure, then it makes sense to make a precise conversion. On the other hand, is the 750 feet precise? Finetooth (talk)

I see that I have ducked the question about the back-and-forth problem created by citing a mix of sources using different kinds of units. I don't know of a neat standard solution to this problem. Sorry. I wish I did. Finetooth (talk) 20:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Much to ponder there. Answering your one question (when you said 750, I assume you might mean the 730 feet on the seaway max). I did not research it but assume that it is a legally defined number, and in feet, i.e. an exact number,. So I thought that a rounding error of a 1/2 meter in the conversion might be too much and so I forced the extra digit. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I add that I checked the guideline again. The first good news is that I can't find a requirement of a consistent spelling-out/abbreviation choice for all units there. Second, the length rationale which you also raised features explicitly in a parenthesis: "but symbols may also be used when a unit (especially one with a very long name) is used many times in an article". Based on this, I think your idea that mph be abbreviated but knot and feet not, is acceptable, even the abbreviation of mph only. And I think your idea is a good enough solution for the back-and-forth problem (knot/kn didn't concern me that much as miles per hour/mph).

Minor note on wikilinking: you can force convert to produce what Finetooth suggests (wikilinking only the abbreviated units) with the "|lk=out" parameter: "((convert|43|kn|mph km/h|lk=out))" produces "43 knots (49 mph; 80 km/h)". --Rontombontom (talk) 22:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I meant 730. Every editor needs an editor (or six). After thinking about the back-and-forth question some more, I submitted it as a question on the FAC talk page at WT:FAC#Conversion question. Finetooth (talk) 23:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I put a reply there. (I realise that the problem with the solution you asked about on the Talk page was discussed above under a different bullet point than the one where abbreviations were discussed - I should have indicated that earlier.) --Rontombontom (talk) 07:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we have 4 or 5 questions kind of blended together here and so this is getting confusing. I'm going to try to clarify what the questions are on the article talk page. North8000 (talk) 18:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the thorough and detailed answers at the article's talk page. I think that the units and conversion related work is done (?) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is still the deadweight tonnage vs. the carrying capacity issue I mentioned upthread, but that probably only needs my education and no tinkering with conversions or anything in the article (except sourcing). My questions are: (1) do those two terms designate different specifications or are they synonymous? (2) Can there be a numerical difference between them? (The infobox says deadweight tonnage was 26,660, the Design and construction section says carrying capacity was 26,600.) (3) With what precision are these values to be understood with? --Rontombontom (talk) 08:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, realising that my review and replies to it became rather hard to follow, for convenience, I inserted done-not done marks. --Rontombontom (talk) 08:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When reviewing FA American commercial ship articles on WikiProject Ships, DWT is commonly used so I did not revise that in the info box. I did revise the info box and Design and construction section to 26,000 long or gross tons as reported by MacInnis and Thompson.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 17:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I started checking into the DWT definitions and ended up making up more questions myself than I answered. It's clear the DWT refers to capacity for all load (cargo, people, fuel, supplies etc.), but beyond that it's unclear. I originally thought that DWT might be directly legally defined, but now I'm guessing not. Especially since it appears that load lines are legally defined (at least in this case) and those vary with the season, and in the Fitz's case, underwent a major (39") change during her service. (my 30 second wild-ass guess is that the 39" change equates to a 4,800 DWT change! ) Next, per the Wikipedia article, the units for DWT are not consistent. Sometimes it's defined by long tonnes, sometimes by "metric" tons. (and, both are different than the common meaning of "ton" in the US.) I think that we are going to have to see what the sources say, and, to whatever extent we can, give any figures the context of the actual units, what determined the number and whether it was before or after the load line change. And then try to simplify that. :-) North8000 (talk) 12:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deadweight tonnage is a stub article apparently written from a British viewpoint, so I don't know, maybe US inland water shipping could have used short tons, too... but either way you'll have to check it in sources, it appears. --Rontombontom (talk) 13:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I could not find deadweight tonnage for the Fitzgerald in any of my source books, on page 7 of the NTSB report, page 2 of the Coast Guard report, or in the Great Lakes Vessels Database. Unless someone can locate a source, we should probably delete the deadweight tonnage from the infobox.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 23:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the vessel database, I note that (1) it quantifies a net tonnage change in 1969, which should be in the infobox and the Career section; (2) it has ship dimensions precise to the inch, which differ from what's in the article. --Rontombontom (talk) 23:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find a source for "carrying capacity"? --Rontombontom (talk) 00:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the dimensions, tonnage etc. we should probably noodle on this a day or 2 to make sure the changes are solid. That's a big difference in length. Database says 711 ft., it looks like at least a few sources say 729 ft. Could this just be how it's measured? (e.g at the waterline vs. max length) Is there a conflict between sources? Should we consider the database to be a wp:RS? And by "RS" I don't mean just reliable, I mean passing muster as a wp:RS. North8000 (talk) 00:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see page 2 of the Coast Guard report. The Fitzgerald's overall length was 729 feet and its bp (Length between perpendiculars) was 711 feet. The NTSB report (page 7) said the ship length was 729 feet. The database under discussion is from Bowling Green State University. The carrying capacity of the Fitzgerald was about 26,000 tons (see page 50 of 40th launch anniversary. I will add 2 more sources that confirm the 26,000 ton carrying capacity.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 03:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Length is cleared up then -- I suggest to add the between perpendiculars measure (with inch precision, converted to tenth of metre precision) after the overall one in the infobox. Regarding the discrepancy in depth, that may be related to the change in minimum? Regarding the carying capacity, the Telescope source contains multiple numbers (all without specifying the ton as short or long ton): 26,000 ton (pdf page 6), 27,000 ton (pdf page 23), later increased to an unspecified 30,000 ton plus (also pdf page 23) which was also exploited five times. Note that the article currently says 26,600, which would explain both the 26,000 and 27,000 figures.

I agree with North8000 that you can take your time sorting out the sources before editing the article. --Rontombontom (talk) 08:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the net tonnage comment someone snipped inadvertently, I note that the USCG and NTSB reports confirm the post-1969 reduced net tonnage, too. In addition, the NTSB report (page 9) also gives the actual tonnage of the taconite on the last voyage (26,116 long tons, page 9). --Rontombontom (talk) 08:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was the reliability of the Marine Historical Society as source discussed in earlier reviews/on the article Discussion page? Its Edmund Fitzgerald page specifies 26,600 as the (original) DWT, explains the 1969 reduction in net tonnage, dates the 1970 collision. --Rontombontom (talk) 09:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find the 33'4" (rather than 39') draft is mentioned in the Queen of the Lakes book, too (p. 164). --Rontombontom (talk) 09:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know that in at least some cases (such as the definition of "D" in L/D slenderness ratio), "depth" does not mean draft, it is basically the height of the main body of the ship in the center area. North8000 (talk) 13:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment I'm a bit uncomfortable with the "inches" degree of precision on the warterline length. It appears that it is based on a variable anyway, which is the location of the waterline. Such varies with the seasons, and changed dramatically with the large change in the load line. Also, I think that the only source for that precision at this point is that website. North8000 (talk) 13:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Plimsoll line is directly related to freeboard. According to Bishop (page 137), the change in the Fitzgerald's winter freeboard resulted in it hauling 4000 tons above what it was designed to haul in 1975. In response to an above question, the Marine Historical Society article appears to be in error on more than one fact (see the discussion of Seaway Max on the article's talk page). I will work on replacing that article with other sources.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 15:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

4000 tons = about 4,400 US tons. So my 4,800 ton wild-ass guess was "way" off  :-) North8000 (talk) 15:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second review

My first review focused on formatting issues, and got bogged down in the verification of various figures. Those are now sorted out, and now I finished a second review after a more thorough reading (as foretold at the end of the first), this time focusing on the prose (which you asked for PR for). I did some copyedit of minor issues 'on the fly', below more significant notes. Most of this doesn't relate to specific Wikipedia guidelines, but is strictly just suggestions—implement what fits your own editorial tastes only.

• First a general observation on article size. The Wikipedia Page size tool says that the readable prose size of the article (without footnotes) is currently 55 kB (9223 words). According to Wikipedia:Article size, "Readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 30 to 50 KB, which roughly corresponds to 6,000 to 10,000 words of readable prose." That makes the article slightly more than ideal on kB but within the margin on word count. There is no fixed rule to keep here, WP:SIZERULE is a relative scale with "May need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)" applying above 40kB and up to 60 kB. Personally, I don't think that it would make sense to split anything from the article, nor do the potentials for brevity I see add up to much, so there is no problem.

  I guess that the "middle of the road" approach might be to trim a bit here and there when the material or level of detail is borderline for inclusion. Including those that you noted. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Another general note: this is again not critical, but cleaning up the full citation code would be for the benefit of readability to different editors and for some wikicode economics (I did some of it on the fly). Spaces before/after the | and = signs and parameter names are haphazard, there are unfilled parameters which should be removed, "|author=Surname, Name" would be better converted into |first= and |last= for uniformity. There was one kind of omission that's serious: some citations with links lack filled-in |accessdate= parameters.

  I added access dates and converted citations to "|author=Surname, Name" except if there were multiple authors. I tried to make the the spacing uniform in the citations and changed the case in book titles. I hope I caught most of the problems.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 17:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Legal settlement: the second para consists of two comparisons of the Bradley and Fitzgerald cases. It starts and ends with the Bradley one, so to me the last sentence reads as an aside. I'd change the order of the last two sentences, with a slight re-wording, to put back the emphasis on the Fitzgerald with an answering structure (Bradley case was like this—Fitz case wasn't like that—Bradley case was also like this—Fitz case again wasn't like that).

  Revised. Does it work?--Wpwatchdog (talk) 20:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I see you found another solution, which also works with me. --Rontombontom (talk) 18:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Underwater surveys: giving the technical details on CURV-III is probably unnecessary; full mission goals list of the Michigan Sea Grant Program probably off focus too.

  Revised as recommended.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 17:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Underwater surveys, details on the donation of the ship bell: maybe better placed in the Memorials section? If moved, consider merging the remaining paragraph on MacInnis 1995 dive with the one on the Tysall-Zee 1995 dive.

  I moved the bell details to the memorial section. I didn't merge the MacInnis 1995 and Tysall-Zee sentences as one paragraph. Please do so if you think that would be better.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 17:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  The remaining paragraph is short but two sentences, so its no problem; I thought they could be connected because they describe events in the same year and both involve special diving methods. --Rontombontom (talk) 18:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Underwater surveys: maybe the last para would be better placed under the next sub-section?

  Done.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 17:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I moved one sentence around (the one declaring that there is a license requirement) for a logical order.

• Theories on the cause of sinking: why is the citation mark where it is in the middle of the sentence?

  Moved it to the end of the sentence. North8000 (talk) 19:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Cargo hold flooding: second para, "Almost from the beginning": could you specify from when? Or maybe this sentence start could be dropped?

  Revised.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 21:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Cargo hold flooding: "If weather permitted" - warranted, necessitated, compelled, demanded?

  Revised with direct quote.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 21:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Cargo hold flooding: "U.S.C.G. vice admiral" - maybe without dots? Elsewhere in the article, given that Canada was involved, too, and also to rhyme with the practice for the NTSB, maybe it's better to write out "U.S. Coast Guard (USCG)" on first occurrence and USCG everywhere else? (The "Changes to Great Lakes shipping practice" section already uses it.)

  Corrected.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 21:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I wrote "U.S. Coast Guard" for the long form without checking what's the actual title of the Wikipedia article; now I made the first occurrence "United States Coast Guard (USCG)" but revise if it was your choice. --Rontombontom (talk) 18:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Shoaling, image caption: I'm unfamiliar with the expressions used. I guess "upbound" means going upriver, as for "in ballast", does it mean without payload and only with ballast water? If this is specialised shipping vernacular, maybe it would be better to use more general words for a general audience.

  My experience with upbound is with the upper great lakes, but I checked it out further. It looks like it is pervasively used shorthand for indicating direction on non-ocean inland waterways. Even when flow is miniscule (like Lake Superior, which moves on average about .00004 MPH "downstream", the term is used to indicate direction. Probably not official jargon, and probably hard to precisely define. More like when you meet a fellow air traveler, there are those headed "headed home" and "leaving home".

  "In ballast" probably technically means that there is some water in the ballast tanks, but I think thqt the commonplace meaning is that the ship is empty.

  Great Lakes bulk shipping (mostly ore, grain) is a special case. In Lake Superior's case, these ships practically always head east downbound (east) full and upbound (west) empty.

  Not sure where that leaves us, just thought I'd say all of that. North8000 (talk) 12:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Upbound is an official term. I believe that "in ballast" is a commonly used term in Great Lakes shipping. I added links to the image caption. If that doesn't work, we can change the caption.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 15:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the explanations. I knew what ballast is, "in ballast" is what got me wondering. Then again, English is not my first language. I think "westbound with no cargo" would be the wording best understood by a general audience, but the present wikilinked version would have worked for me as first-time reader, too. I say let's leave this for the FAC reviewers. --Rontombontom (talk) 18:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Rontombontom, it is astounding to hear that English is not your first language, seeing how good you are at it! North8000 (talk) 01:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Shoaling: the first sentence repeats what's discussed in more detail with the Paul Trimble quote in the previous section. I would put the LCA acronym def there, and start this section with something like "The LCA believed that instead of hatch cover leakage, the more probable cause was..."

  Revised as recommended.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 18:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Shoaling, "was challenged by Shannon's 1994 excellent quality of detailed photography of": a bit confusing and "excellent" may fall under WP:PEACOCK. I suggest a re-wording like "was challenged on the basis of Shannon's 1994 higher quality detail photographs of". Also, who made the challenge: Shannon himself?

  I revised as suggested and added some further information. As an aside, it was Stonehouse who said Shannon's photograhpy was excellent. I think he was comparing it to the very poor quality from the CURV-III.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 19:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Shoaling, "Divers searched the Six Fathom Shoal after the wreck": the connection to the prior sentence is unclear. Was this point made along with the Shannon photographs, or earlier?

  Revised.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 15:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Shoaling, "Opponents of the shoaling theory": can they be named? (WP:WEASEL) Also, was this before or after Shannon? (For the text flow, putting this before Shannon may be better.)

  Revised paragraph so that it specified who presented arguments against the shoaling theory without using the word "opponent". Also moved text as suggested.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Shoaling, Hainault's theory: on one hand, mentioning the probable sinking of the minesweepers in 1918 is probably unnecessary detail. On the other hand, it's unclear to me from the text whether the hypothesised shoaling on Superior Shoal happened immediately before the sinking or a significant time earlier?

  I deleted the minesweeper sentence. I will look in another source for the date of Hainault's theory.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 17:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  For clarity: the time question regarding Hainault's theory I had as reader is whether he thought Superior Shoal damaged the ship immediately before the sinking, or hours-days earlier; not when Hainault presented his theory. --Rontombontom (talk) 17:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for the clarification. I added the time of Hainult's shoaling theory and more information on the location. The Superior Shoal is many miles from the site of the wreck.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Structural failure, "39 inches (99 cm) lower in the water": I'd cut the numerical value here, because it is discussed and with a more precise value in the "Increased load lines, reduced freeboard" section.

  Thanks and done. North8000 (talk) 19:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Structural failure, "contributed to the large waves causing a stress fracture in the hull": better "made it possible for the large waves to cause a stress fracture in the hull"?

  Good, thanks and done. North8000 (talk) 19:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Topside damage, third sentence ("He theorized..."): dense, maybe better broken into two sentences.

  I tried, but ran into a content problem. The main statements involved flooding of ballast tanks or walking tunnel, but then it jumped to cargo hold flooding as if that was the statement of the sentence. Wpwatchdog, could you check what the source said? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Copy edited.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 19:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Complacency: third para, first sentence second part: the unqualified "sea state" didn't seem to make sense, I checked the source. The source calls for determining a limiting sea state and a restriction of operation in sea states worse than that. So this part should be re-worded to be faithful to the source.

  Revised.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 15:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Changes to Great Lakes shipping practice point 1: vessels 1,600 tons and over: are tons GRT?

  Revised. Stonehouse said it was gross tons.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 17:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Note: gross tons is not mass measured in long tons, but a volumetric measure. I fixed this with a wikilink to GRT. --Rontombontom (talk) 19:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Memorials, "more than 6,000 lives lost on the Great Lakes": I wondered, since when? The source didn't say, but checking, I find this must have been a corrupted reference to this: "The Great Lakes Mariners Memorial Project has commenced to remember the more than 6,000 ships and 30,000 lives lost on the Great Lakes since the foundering of LaSalle's Griffin in 1679." I suggest a re-phrase without a specific number for casualties or period of time.

  This was also cut along with the following point. I felt however that stating that the Fitz service ended in 2006 gives the impression that people got 'tired' of remembering, hence I put back a half-sentence to imply that the service continued in another form. But revert it if you think it's unnecessary. --Rontombontom (talk) 19:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Memorials: I think the pattern of bell tolls after the service was broadened beyond the Fitzgerald could be left off.

  Thanks and done. North8000 (talk) 19:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Memorials: do I read right that the replica bell was placed in the sunken ship? Maybe a slight re-wording could make that clear. (The passages I suggested to move from the Underwater surveys section would be pest placed after this.)

  Revised.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 16:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Memorials: I'd add the year to date the uproar over the bell refurbishing controversy.

  Done.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 19:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An additional note on wind speeds again. The USCG report contains several wind speed reports, which seem to have a tendency to be lower than those from other sources in the article. In particular, on page 27 (pdf page 39), I find: "ANDERSON logged winds of 58 knots from 304°T, the highest winds recorded during the voyage." Meanwhile, the 69 knots max seems suspiciously close to the simulation results discussed in "Waves and weather". Could you give a verbatim quote of the source for the 69 knots maximum, as well as for the 75 knot wind gust hitting the Anderson?

A quick pre-emptive clarification if you are working on this right now: I meant to give the verbatim quote here, to discuss it; not as quote added to the article. --Rontombontom (talk) 20:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wolff, page 226:

As his vessel, Arthur M. Anderson, passed through the same area, although somewhat north of the Fitzgerald's track, he observed winds blowing at 69 mph, but gusting to more than 100 mph, and waves generally running 16 to 26 feet.

Wolff, page 218:

In later testimony, Captain Cooper noted considerable change in wave conditions as his vessel cleared Caribou Island and wind gusts increased to 70 to 75 knots.

I think the 75 knot figure was also in another source but I will have to look some more. Please feel free to edit the wind speeds. I think that the reported wind speeds vary in different sources like we encountered with the ship dimensions.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 21:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find another source that used the 75 knot wind speed in relation to the Anderson. More quotes on the wind speeds reported by the Anderson:

Schumacher, page 70:

The wind, Cooper noted, was blowing steady between 65 and 70 mile per hour, with gusts hitting 100, and quartering seas were breaking over the Anderson's starboard side.

MacInnis, page 50, directly quoting Captain Cooper:

I think we had gusts of wind at over 100 miles an hour on a few occasions but it was a constant 60 knots...

Thompson (2000), page 323:

At 4:20 the Anderson logged wind speeds of sixty-seven miles an hour out of the northwest, the highest sustained winds they recorded during the voyage.

(End of unsigned addition by Wpwatchdog)

So 69 mph (equals 60 knots), not knots! That puts it in the right ballpark, I made preliminary corrections to fit the presently used source. From your above quotes, it is clear that the source for the gusts is a post-disaster testimony by Captain Cooper, the 60 knot sustained ditto, while the USCG report's 58 knots sustained (and Thompson's paraphrased-converted 67 mph sustained) comes from the actual telegrams. Based on Captain Cooper's indefinite language, I think it's better to change to the 58 knots and the USCG sourcing. --Rontombontom (talk) 22:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that USCG sourcing is best because they got their figures from the recorded speeds.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 22:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the NTSB report, too. Wind speeds are listed on pages 10-11. I wrote them up as a timeline, also for wave heights:

0100 FITZGERALD 52 kn 10 ft

(0300 ANDERSON 42 kn)

0700 FITZGERALD 35 kn 10 ft

(1152 ANDERSON 30 kn 10-12 ft)

1300 ANDERSON 20 kn 12 ft

1300 M/V SIMCOE 44 kn 7 ft

1300 Stannard Rock 50 kn gust 59 kn

1350 ANDERSON 5 kn

1445 ANDERSON 42 kn

1520 ANDERSON 43 kn 12-16 ft

1652 ANDERSON 52 kn (typo?) 12-18 ft

(1652: ANDERSON 58 kn 12-18 ft)

1700 Stannard Rock 56 kn (gust 66 kn)

???? ANDERSON (gust 70-75 kn)

(1800) ANDERSON 18-25 ft

1900 ANDERSON 50 kn 16 ft

1900 Stannard Rock 40 kn gust 65 kn

(2059 ANDERSON 48 kn)

There you have the second source for 70 to 75 knots. Technically, 70 to 75 knots is "over 100 mph", maybe it was another testimony where he was more precise. At any rate, I'd trust NTSB even if they don't give a verbatim quote from Captain Cooper, and I'd add it as sourcing for the 70-75 mph gusts.

I'll check the USCG report again, too. --Rontombontom (talk) 23:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(added later) Not correct that 70-75 knots = over 100 mph. 75 knots = about 86 mph North8000 (talk) 01:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The USCG report contains all the same wind speeds and wave heights as the NTSB report, except for the 70 to 75 knot gust, and some additional readings from the Anderson, which I added to the list above in Italics. Also highligghted some maximums in bold.

I suspected this from reading the article already, but now it's clear that there was a first period of strong winds in the early hours and a temporary lull around midday, which could probably warrant the addition of 1 am Fitz and 1:50 pm Anderson measured wind speeds to the article, and moving the maximum speeds into the right timeline. --Rontombontom (talk) 23:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at those wave heights, I ask: can you check the 35-feet maximum sources again, too? Not because I'd doubt them, but for the context (who observed it, when). --Rontombontom (talk) 23:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I forgot that the 35-foot wave is discussed in detail in the rouge wave theory section. So here I only suggest to move into the right timeline, too.

In the lede, the 100 mph maximum wind gust speed should be replaced with the 70 to 75 knot max to be in sync with the article body. Alternatively, both sustained and gust wind speed details in the lede could be replaced by an indefinite "hurricane-force" (I would do it like that but it's your editorial choice). --Rontombontom (talk) 13:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revised lead to say "hurricane-force" winds.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 15:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(added later) So, now the only wind speed info in the lead is the near hurricane force winds. Done (?) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, I'm pretty impressed with the work the editors have done on the article and the level to which they have followed up my poring of minutiae. The article certainly succeeded in making me interested in its subject (and it's rather far from me, I mostly edit articles on railways). --Rontombontom (talk) 20:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. That looks like lots of good suggestions we can work on. Thank you.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 22:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you much for your work and expertise here. North8000 (talk) 23:12, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, I think that this completes addressing the 2nd review items. (?) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed you followed up on all of my bullet point sugestions, even the more tentative ones! I also see that you saved some more text—in case you don't have it installed, the readable prose size (which excludes stuff like footnotes, tables, image captions, infoboxes, section titles) is now down to 53 kB (8891 words).

But the wind speed stuff remains (changing sourcing to the USCG report, 69 mph->58 kn for max sustained wind observed, correct timeline). Methinks this is too elaborate an edit for a reviewer to do on his own, but, since I looked at the source last and remember where to look for the data in it, if you consent, it may be simplest if I do this myself.

When do you plan going for FAC? So that I won't miss the vote :-) --Rontombontom (talk) 12:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You and Wp have done so much work recently on wind speeds that you are far beyond me in understanding where it's at. I did not even realize that we have an open item. If you have an idea (including a big one) and wish to edit, don't hesitate to edit! My one thought is the that NOAA/NWS simulationn findings still be be kept as such, albeit presented as such, and I don't think that there is any proposal to remove them.

Answering your second question: as soon as possible! Our ultimate goal is to be FA of the day on November 10th, hopefully 2011. I think that these are our next steps:

1. learn when it is proper to consider the peer review completed
2. wait until then
3. a few days on a final self-review, and deciding that we're ready to roll
4. submit for FA consideration

Sincerely North8000 (talk) 12:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rontombontom, please do fix the wind speeds.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 22:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rontombontom, if I understand it properly, we have implemented your specific wind speed change recommendations. But feel free to make whatever changes that you think would be good. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's all done now: I have re-edited the Final voyage & wreck section in line with the above discussed points (58 knots, correct timeline, USCG sourcing), and placed detailed edit notes into the Discussion page of the article. I note that my edits increased the readable prose size slightly, to 53 kB (9025 words).

I also did some last-minute stylistic changes: there were a lot of non-straight apostrophes (maybe the result of using Winword as editor?), two "p.m," in place of "p.m.," and a "p.m.." rather than "p.m." at the end of a sentence. --Rontombontom (talk) 11:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Thanks. North8000 (talk) 13:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review Completed?

Shall we consider the peer review to have been completed? North8000 (talk) 12:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The applicable rule is, "nominators of peer reviews can close discussions which they initiated if they feel their concerns have been addressed". --Rontombontom (talk) 20:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We listed some specific areas plus requested review for "anything that we may have missed", and our concerns will have been addressed when it looks like the last item has run it's course. We put it up for peer review on January 24th, after asking for and receiving a thorough review when achieving GA. What a large amount of additional expert review and help we have received ! ! Thank you everybody! ! It looks like we have had about 600 edits on the article itself since January 24th. I think that the last new action item was put up on February 19, and it looks like all items from those have been completed, with subsequent feedback and help on those during their completion. Speaking for myself, I think that we have arrived at that point. WPwatchdog, what do you think? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After all the excellent help and suggestions we got during the peer reviews, I think we are ready now.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 21:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so here goes (closing the peer review)North8000 (talk) 21:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]