Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SS Edmund Fitzgerald/archive3

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 promoted by SandyGeorgia 15:20, 6 May 2011 [1].

SS Edmund Fitzgerald[edit]

Nominator(s): North8000 (talk) 21:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because we think it is ready, and believe that the topic is both interesting and famous. A 729 foot long ship which sank in a huge storm with 35 ft waves on a lake, with all hands lost, and the cause remaining a mystery. We've received and responded to much excellent feedback in the last few months. It received thorough review when it achieved GA (review at GA review page). We then asked for and received a thorough Peer Review. Then this article recently had a FAC review (page at FAC review page with a large sub page at FAC review sub page) We believe that it received reviews with successful conclusions on references, general and images. (we've since added one image: [2]) There were concerns with prose and the 3/20/11 close advised us to improve prose and come back in a few weeks. In response to our request, the Copy Editors Guild went through it thoroughly and made changes in the prose. We then asked for, received and responded to feedback from the reviewer who expressed concerns on prose during FAC. During that time we also worked to further improve other areas. Thank you to all who have helped us including those who have given us feedback. We have active editors ready to respond. Thank you for your consideration. North8000 (talk) 21:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. It's a excellent article, complete and organizated. Good work, North. MatheusLPereira (talk) 17:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. On the last point, WPWatchdog did the most work on the article, and many others have helped substantially. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support with the disclaimer that have I helped review the article on its talk page to offer comments and suggestions before this renomination. Imzadi 1979 → 18:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments: The sources seem to be well organised, and of appropriate reliability. A few small points:-

In the list of books, please check punctuation in the Schumacher (2005) entry. Is the publisher actually called "Michigan Bloomsbury Publishing"?
For newspaper sources, page numbers should be provided where there is no online link
Can "ServiceOntario" be considered as the publisher of the various laws and regulations cited? Surely it is only a facilitating site, in the same way as, say, Project Gutenberg gives online access to books?

Brianboulton (talk) 23:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the above points except the page numbers for Poulson and Lawrence's newspaper articles. I should be able to add that information soon.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 20:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All of the corrections on the sources are completed.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 15:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

There are no links needing dab; all pics have alt text; one external link timed out as unresponsive but this could be temporary. All photos are properly licensed as stated in the previous FAC. Brad (talk) 00:59, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Above mentioned link timeout no longer times out. I've watched this article improve constantly since it passed GA review. Involved editors have been extremely cooperative and attentive to feedback and improvement. My involvement with the article amounts to less than 30 edits and advice given in peer review and talk page comments. Brad (talk) 03:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Normally I review MilHist articles but a fair few of them are ships, and wrecks always intrigue me anyway, particularly mysterious ones. Anyway, given the number of previous noms I suppose we should expect this to be well prepared, and it is -- well written, referenced and structured, covers the topic in detail, and has all the requisite supporting materials. I've made a couple of minor copyedits, not particularly vital but they mix the prose up a bit. A few other nitpicks, none of which affect my support of the article but could improve it further:

Generally "which" is employed after a comma, otherwise "that" is used -- I changed one instance but not others.
Done except within quotations.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 00:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The first two paras of Design and Construction are a bit heavy going due to all the citations. Is it possible that some duplicate each other, and could be omitted?
Done.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 15:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As a general point, if you can drop any citations at all in the article without compromising the referencing, it'd improve the reading experience a bit.
Done - number of citations reduced from 240 to 203.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 21:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You used both "she/her" and "it" to refer to the ship -- this should be standardised, preferably the former. I dealt with one instance, pls check for any others.
Completed eleven more corrections for "she/her" instead of "it." Did not change "it" within quotations.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 23:49, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
McSorley reported, "We are holding our own." It sank minutes later. No distress signal... -- Since we know from the start that the ship sank, I wonder if it's more effective to remove "It sank minutes later" with something along the lines of "This was the last communication received..." Then we can pick up the story of how she sank as it unfolds in the following sections.
Paquette's vessel was the first to reach a discharge port after the November 10 storm to be met by company attorneys who came aboard the Sykes. -- Bit confusing, do we mean Paquette's vessel was the first to reach a discharge port after the November 10 storm, and was met by company attorneys who came aboard the Sykes.? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I edited that to clarify. Thanks. North8000 (talk) 12:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all of that great feedback. There is one area where I might offer a comment, which is that IMHO ""We are holding our own." It sank minutes later. No distress signal...."" conveys useful information...that the sinking was very sudden and unexpected. Thanks again. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No prob, and thanks Wpwatchdog for your mods -- always nice to have people respond to suggestions even when support has already been given... ;-) Checking those, there might actually be one or two cases when "(comma) which" might read better than "that", but I'll take care of those. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support and help.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 02:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and for your comments. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I picked through this article the last time it was here, and feel that it has only improved since then.Canada Hky (talk) 03:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How are "depth" and "depth of hold" distinguished? Not defined anywhere in the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, the number after "depth" has the term "moulded" which has slightly varying definitions but for all it is the vertical dimension in the center of the ship from the bottom of the keel to somewhere on or just under the main (weather) deck. We spent about 2,000 words in talk and researched about 8 places just trying to do our best on those two numbers and the terminology for them. (first discussion section, second discussion section) The problem is that the sources gave both of those numbers, using those terms, without being clear on exactly what they meant, and the definitions of the terms themselves also vary. In the end we just went with the numbers and terminology used by the sources, reassured by a "plausibility check" from our other research...that the 39' moulded depth given by the sources is plausible for the various definitions of moulded depth, and ditto for 33' 4" as the hold depth. The problem with trying to add clear statements on the meaning of the terminology given with those two numbers is that we would be guessing/adding precision to what the sources said where such "additional info" did not actually come from the sources. But I think that it would be safe to add a general statement in. I'll do that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added it. North8000 (talk) 17:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Has there been a close paraphrasing, sourcing check? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're been checked thoroughly on sourcing in general. I've not seen where anyone has checked us for close paraphrasing. North8000 (talk) 17:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(added later) I know that this doesn't mean much, but this article has been about 90% reworked (like 3,000 edits) over the last 6 months, and most material is new. Most of the actual insertions of material was by me and WPWatchdog. WP did more of the source-based type work than me, but I can say that my part I'm pretty confident I've not put in any close paraphrasing. Maybe WP might want to reflect on this as well in case it is helpful. North8000 (talk) 21:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice if someone would do that :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Design and construction section: close paraphrasing check completed. The check resulted in citation corrections and revision of the first sentence. (The author's text read, "The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, a heavy investor in the iron and minerals industries, had ordered the construction of the ship: the first time an American life insurance company had made such an investment.") I expect my check of the article will take several days unless someone else has access to all of the sources.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 14:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that SandyGeorgia meant for somebody else to check on us, (I don't think we're allowed to review ourselves :-) ) using the general/usual tips for spotting close paraphrasing in articles. I was just thinking that since most of the material in the article was initially inserted by you and me (you #1) that comments from you and me about our own insertions might be helpful to the reviewer. North8000 (talk) 16:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I just changed text in the Career section to quotes to avoid close paraphrasing. I will standby for further instructions.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 16:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion would be to quickly fix any that you know of that you put in, and then say here that you think that all of the material that you put in is OK. North8000 (talk) 16:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful not to turn the article into a quotefarm. There are better ways than quotes to fix the troubles. Brad (talk) 18:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I finished checking the article and added quotes where the text ran too close to the original. I agree that the article is too heavy on quotes. It would be great if someone took another crack at paraphrasing.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 00:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it is OK regarding that. Most quotes are in for a good reason, usually when some person or organization made a significant & important but imperfect statement. Also I don't think that there are too many in proportion. But I removed and summarized two block quotes anyway. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, to summarize, we self-checked, repaired two possible instances of close paraphrasing, and the two main editors believe that we have no close paraphrasing remaining.North8000 (talk) 03:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 03:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Their investment in the construction of the Fitzgerald made them the first American life insurance company to invest in the construction of a ship.": Some repetition here.
Fixed North8000 (talk) 11:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are a number of "city, state" pairs that need a comma after the state. I'm getting all the ones that aren't linked, so the ones that are left are easy to find. See WP:Checklist#second commmas and WT:Checklist.
Happy to change...but is this a pretty sure thing? (basis seems to be the checklist which says that all city state sequences are considered to be parenthetical phrases?) North8000 (talk)
I don't believe it's in our style guidelines, but it's in the top 3 US style guides and many more. See WT:Checklist. The problem with comma rules, of course, is that commas are one of the easiest things to ignore, which means that everyone is reading a lot of stuff that (according to current style guides) gets it wrong. Also, it's totally okay to drop the second comma in "tabular" material ... TV shows like Jeopardy regularly drop the second comma in their clues (groan). - Dank (push to talk) 13:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I say we roll with that. North8000 (talk) 14:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not following. What I'm saying is that, like many style guide recommendations, it gets thrown out in list-y or abbreviated formats, not in text. - Dank (push to talk) 14:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to do as you originally recommended, a comma after both the city and the state wherever the city,state, sequence occurs mid-sentence. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All done. North8000 (talk) 16:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be AmEng, so it's "St. Lawrence", with a period.
Searched for instances, found and fixed. North8000 (talk) 11:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if this is required, but we usually link the first occurrence of "nautical mile" at FAC, since many readers have no idea how long that is.
Looks like the only instance of that term in the article was generated by the convert template so we don't have anywhere to link from. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some like the formatting of 5/16 in "5⁄16-inch-thick (7.9 mm)"; some don't. It seems to be supported by MOSNUM, and I don't have a position.
I also am fine with it either way. Left it as is unless someone prefers it changed. North8000 (talk) 12:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Company designed furnishings": Company-designed furnishings
Fixed North8000 (talk) 11:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:ELLIPSES; "..." usually needs a space before and a space after.
Found and fixed all of them. North8000 (talk) 11:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done for now. - Dank (push to talk) 03:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Unless you prefer otherwise, we'll note responses and work completed in-line. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that's fine. One more thing: someone got the idea that {{'}} produces 's ... it doesn't, it produces '. Please search the text for {{'}} and (usually) replace with {{'s}}. - Dank (push to talk) 14:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not comfortable changing something I'm dumb on. What would that not be just 's ?
I got it (check my last edit). It's so trivial that I'm ashamed to bring it up, but it's a MOS requirement, generally supported by style guides ... the Mediawiki software renders (incorrectly IMO) ''Fitzgerald'''s with an italicized apostrophe, so we write instead ''Fitzgerald''{{'}}s or ''Fitzgerald''{{'s}}, which gives a non-italicized apostrophe. - Dank (push to talk) 17:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Thanks to folks like you I learn something new in WP every day. I'll change those. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing. I believe I got them all. - Dank (push to talk) 19:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the kerning problems throughout; see WP:MOS#Quotations within quotations. - Dank (push to talk) 14:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support for half of it on prose and MOS per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped, SS_Edmund_Fitzgerald#Theories on the cause of sinking. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 16:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the edits and the support. I couldn't find any more errors for the plural form of Fitzgerald.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 18:31, 4 May 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.