Talk:New Carissa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	New Carissa is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 31, 2007.
Article Milestones Date Process Result August 12, 2006 Peer review Reviewed August 19, 2006 Featured article candidate Promoted Current Status: Featured article

This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects Click on [show] for further details
This article is part of WikiProject Oregon, a comprehensive WikiProject dedicated to articles about topics related to the U.S. state of Oregon. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or join by visiting the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Shipwrecks, an attempt to improve coverage of shipwreck-related topics. See also the parent WikiProject, WikiProject Disaster Management. If you plan to work on this article for an extended period of time, please indicate what you are doing on the Project's talk page. NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritising and managing its workload. FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the Project's quality scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the Project's importance scale. Shipwreck-related priority open tasks: To Do Shipwrecks Clean up typos Improve grammar Add any additions if needed Discuss desired additions Cattewater Wreck Needs expansion Done Shipwrecks Re-wrote the first paragraph Cleaned up Types of Shipwrecks it felt a bit jumbled Cattewater Wreck Started the article
This article is part of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Ship-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome. FA rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale ??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.

Contents 1 Questions for peer review/featured article status 2 Reference numbers 3 Cause of Grounding? 4 Image credits 5 Officially know as... 6 Contradition 7 Stern or bow in picture?

[edit] Questions for peer review/featured article status

Laid down I know nothing about ships. What does "laid down" mean? Is there a wiki article on nautical terms we can link to? The average reader might like to know what the term means. If no wiki article or desire to write one, can we define the term in parentheses? Katr67 02:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• To lay a ship down is to begin construction in a shipyard, to "launch" a vessel is to remove the now-seaworthy vessel from the shipyard and place it in the water. These definitions don't appear to be in Wikipedia anywhere, they ought to be added to glossary of nautical terms, I suppose... --EngineerScotty 06:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Done for "lay down", "launch" seems self-explanatory (but I could be wrong). Katr67 17:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Verb tense Next question. In "Vessel", The ship "has" as steel construction, but "had" a crew, etc. This sort of makes sense since the ship, or part of it, still exists, but it will never have a crew again. But since everything else is past tense, any objection to making the construction part past tense as well? Katr67 02:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• Someone fixed that. --EngineerScotty 06:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Categories Um, "Oregon Culture"? I would add the article to Category:History of Oregon but shipwrecks of the Oregon coast is a subcat of that. Any good arguments for including it with the ballet and symphony and stuff before I remove it? Pop culture maybe (see Exploding Whale, same cat), but I don't think that's what the culture cat covers. Katr67 02:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• Go ahead and remove it. --EngineerScotty 06:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, I did. Katr67 14:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Wood chips I read that the wood chips the NC was to pick up were going to be used to make paper pulp. [1] Can we mention that in the article? A reader unfamiliar with the NW timber industry might well wonder "What the heck do they do with wood chips?" Katr67 17:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• Took care of it. I think I'm done messing with the article now. Congrats on the featured article status everyone! Katr67 01:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reference numbers

There are two note #1s, i.e. two of these: ^[1]. I don't know anything about referencing, plus I know that the article is getting a lot of attention right now, so I thought I'd post it here. The two occur once in the Vessel section and once in Grounding. BigNate37_(T) 16:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• The first two references in the article point to the same footnote; that's why they have the same number. Several footnotes/references are referred to multiple places within the article; this is perfectly normal.--EngineerScotty 17:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• • I seem to have a habit of missing obvious answers to my own questions. Thanks for taking a look. BigNate37_(T) 17:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cause of Grounding?

"The United States Coast Guard performed an investigation and found that captain's error was the main cause of the wreck; ..." (from introduction paragraph) What was the "error" which caused the grounding? The article is unclear as to cause. --TGC55 08:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The section on the grounding and its cause, as well as the section on general vessel information, had been blanked yesterday by vandals. I've re-inserted them: hopefully they answer your questions. --NoahElhardt 15:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image credits

It's not standard and it goes against house style to credit images in the captions. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 13:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Officially know as...

"The New Carissa, officially known as the M/V New Carissa"
Is there a reason why it doesn't just say "The M/V New Carissa"? After all, the prefix link explains why it's there. κаллэмакс 16:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contradition

In part of the article it states that it was decided that they could not remove the ship. But latter it says that they are planning to remove it. This is unclear and should be fixed 163.118.216.93 19:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stern or bow in picture?

The text below the first picture refers to the stern of the ship. However, I'm fairly sure the picture shows the bow of the ship. If someone agrees with me, please do the editing! B.r. SHa, Nav. arc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.250.121.70 (talk) 19:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

Yes, the lead image is the bow as these pictures corroborate: [2] [3] [4] the bow was towed out to sea and ran aground on its own, and the lead picture could be the bow at that time, approximately between March 2 and March 9. Gimmetrow 20:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

It's the bow, but it is a funny looking bow. Scroll down to the photo of the intact ship and you'll see it had an after house (i.e. a big white thingie in the back). There's no big white thingie on this piece of the ship, hence it's probably not the stern. The positioning of the cranes makes it is pretty clear too. Cheers. (3/m) Haus42 21:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)