Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SS Christopher Columbus

;Comments

• Heading on infobox seems to have become an equals sign.
  • Got that sorted, but should there be something above the image? ++Lar
• Put citations in numerical order (right now you have a [4][5][3])
  • I think I got that one sorted. ++Lar
    • Note that Giggy thinks multiple refs are bad. Thoughts? ++Lar: t/c 22:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I think multiple refs are fine where appropriate. However, if you're citing a single verifiable fact then a single reference should suffice. If you're referencing a widely held opinion (for example) then more than one reference is suitable... Just my thoughts though! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• Headings per WP:HEAD avoid "The" at the beginning.
  • "First whalebacks" reads funny... would "Predecessor whalebacks" be better to avoid the "the"? I tried "Background and proposal"... what do you think? ++Lar
    • I don't see why First whalebacks is inappropriate really... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Well, the section also gives motivation for the build so retitling it to "Background..." seemed better. Open to suggestions though. ++Lar: t/c 22:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Year ranges in the infobox need to be seperated by en-dash per WP:DASH.
  • Is this a special character like — is? When I went to WP:DASH and to the dash article I could not find a representation for it. I removed all spaces (so that "(1933 - 1934)" became "(1933-1934)") but I'm not sure what char to use. Suggestions? ++Lar
    • Yes, it's just like that, but – instead. If you're still stuck, shout and I'll fix it and show you what I meant... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Heh, you beat me to it... what about stuff like "42-inch", "14-foot" and the like, does that use – too? ++Lar: t/c 20:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
        • No, those stay as hyphens... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• "on the lakes " - explain for non-experts.
  • sorted. ("on the Great Lakes") ++Lar: t/c 20:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
• Avoid squashing text between a pair of images per WP:MOS#Images.
  • A lot of people have thrashed around on the number, placement, etc. of images on this article. I think all the images it has are needed. I've tried {{imagestack}} but had mixed results. Which sections do you think are bad, which images? I could use a little help on this one... anyone else have ideas? ++Lar: t/c 20:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Since the images are all public domain not all necessarily have to be in the article but rather can roost on Commons. I'm sure if the user is interested in more media they'll figure out how to find it using the commons template. Encouraging the user to visit and use this great sister project whenever possible is a benefit to both parties I believe. 76.10.141.172 (talk) 21:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
      • As an admin, bureaucrat, oversighter and checkuser on Commons verify, I absolutely agree that Commons is an awesome project... more than a sister, in fact, she's a mother to us all :)... And I put a gallery at the bottom of the article, and a link to still more additional images I found during my researches, using {{commonscat}} as well, some time ago. But every image in there, I contend, is important to telling the story the article has to tell. I'm not averse to removal, mind you, but this article has been around a while and has already has quite a few removed or shuffled... I did try a good dose of {{imagestack}}... see what you think. Or propose specific images that could be removed, perhaps? ++Lar: t/c 22:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Hard to say really, the additional images section gallery would seem the only one to remove without sacrificing too much encyclopedic value. Your choice, I'm only a spectator of this board - you're the one who has to capture the king. 76.10.141.172 (talk) 23:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Should be a good starter. Let me know when you're done. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

{{*Comment. I was surprised to see that I had made so many edits to this article, as I've not really looked at it since it's successful GA review (I was the reviewer). I do have just a few comments:

• "... reportedly also the longest vessel on the Great Lakes at the time of her launching." I'm not an expert on maritime terminology, but "launching" sounds a bit awkward. Why not " ... when she was launched"?

• Yup. ++Lar

• "Construction of the Columbus was ordered by the World's Fair Steamship Company at a cost of $360,000." Being picky, I know, but it wasn't the ordering that cost $360,000.

• tried "..at a projected cost of $360,000." instead. ++Lar

• "The cabins and public spaces were outfitted with oak paneling, ...". Not sure that outfitted is right here. Fitted out?

• Yup. +++Lar

• "This placed Columbus among the fastest to be built ships to that time." Seems a bit awkward. Maybe better to merge that sentence with the previous one?

• Tried it. It's still a bit awkward though even with the join. Any ideas there? ++Lar

• "The builders further promised rapid loading and unloading, predicting that the vessel would be able to embark 5,000 passengers in five minutes, and disembark the same passengers in even less time. The Columbus was specified to be able run the six miles from the dock downtown to the fairgrounds at Jackson Park and 64th Street in 20 minutes." Having read that I was left wondering whether the ship actually met those design criteria.

• I never found a cite for whether she did or not, so I was left wondering that too! A lot of advertisements bragging about various aspects of how fast she was, though. If I could find an advert for how many round trips she did, or what the sailing times were, that would sort it, but I haven't yet. ++Lar

• "The Columbus was one of the first ships to be fitted with an on-board radio, installed as early as 1909." Not sure that the "as early as" adds very much.

• I don't know when her radio was added. It has to be as early as 1909 but could be earlier. The cite I found was a 1909 book of callsigns, which -> she had one then. Maybe earlier, can't say. Ideas for a reword? ++Lar

• "Although she was used for excursions elsewhere around the Great Lakes, her regular schedule was a daily trip to Milwaukee, leaving Chicago mid-morning, sailing to Milwaukee for a two-hour stopover, and then returning (as the advertisement (pictured) illustrates). This brought a crowd of sightseers to Milwaukee every day." It seems self-evident that it would bring a crowd of sightseers to Milwaukee every day doesn't it? Perhaps I've misunderstood what's meant here.

• I think that was a hanger on to lead into a paragraph about how much carousing they did, I don't quite recall. :) I found some sort of memoir about rather festive/joyous brewery tours by aforementioned crowds of sightseers, IIRC, but it wasn't quite solid enough so I think maybe it got cut from an earlier draft. Perhaps that's just a hanger on phrase that needs to go too? Still 4000 passengers are quite a few to discharge every day. But I suspect she didn't routinely carry that many once she was out of fair service. ++Lar

I'm pleased to see this article at FAC, and I'm confident that I'll soon be able to support it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for some great comments so far. ++Lar: t/c 00:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)}}

Comments

• Maybe it's just me...but the infobox seems wider than usual. Not sure if shrinking the image is a good idea, but yeah...my ramblings. :)
  • Took the pic to 250, it now has whitespace on each side and the infobox doesn't seem any narrower... I agree it does seem a bit wide... anyone else want to try? ++Lar
    • Yeah, shrinking the pic won't shrink the infobox; the ship infobox is just that wide. I've restored the pic to 300px. TomTheHand (talk) 21:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• "She was the only whaleback ship ever built for passenger service." - the ever isn't necessary
  • Doesn't hurt. Given the number of things McDougall tried, the emphasis seems good. ++Lar
• Not sure what the deal is with the bold number in ref 1
  • No idea. it uses {{cite journal}}... any ideas anyone? ++Lar
    • Cite journal uses bold for the volume number, per consensus on its talk page. Maralia (talk) 03:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Aah, don't mind me then. :) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 07:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• "She was scrapped in 1936 by the Manitowoc Shipbuilding Company at Manitowoc, Wisconsin.[3][4][5]" - is this so contentious that it needs 3 refs? Best to avoid this (makes readability a bit worse) wherever possible
  • Is this against standard? Multiple refs seem harmless enough. ++Lar
    • Well, it is kinda against standard in that not many people do this. It just disrupts readability when you have (as occurs later in the article) 4 refs between 2 sentences. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 07:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I march to the beat of a different drummer, what can I say... I'll take a look and see where I can thin things out a bit, although I don't want to delete any refs outright, I'll just push them down or whatever. ++Lar: t/c 12:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Got that down to 2 I think. Better? ++Lar: t/c 01:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
          • Yeah, that's fine. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• "able to travel at a "high rate of speed".[9][10][11]" - same issue with 3 refs, and I think you could say this without quoting (again, not that it matters majorly...)
  • dequoted. ++Lar
• "Six Scotch boilers were then installed[13][15] and two triple-expansion steam engines" - this reads awkwardly with the 2 refs in the middle. A comma could fix it?
  • comma added. ++Lar
• "She was commissioned on 13 May 1893" - the first time I read this I thought it referred to the Columbian Whaleback Steamship Company...might want to use "the Columbus" instead of "she"
  • reordered preceding sentence to make antecedent clear. ++Lar
• "The Goodrich Transit Line steamer Virginia (later the USS Blue Ridge) is said to have raced against her." - who won?
  • They raced a lot over the years. Sometimes one, sometimes the other, won, it seems (ref the steam pipe explosion incident later in the article, I think SS Chris would have won that one). No idea how many times they raced the first year or which one won more often. ++Lar
• "by the Goodrich Transit Line,[22][23][24][25]" - ...you guessed my comment ;)
  • Would it be bad form to put the multiple page references to the same book into one ref that lists several of them? I think that would get 3 of them collapsed to 1. ++Lar: t/c 12:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• "during a race with her rival, Virginia." - I think you should link Virginia the first time you mention it. Also, check the link; that one doesn't talk about a ship
  • It is linked up higher. Maybe not link it at all here? It's a long way away, thought the rule was first link per section? Fixed where link points. ++lar
    • Ah, I see, there are two in that section. Made first one linked (to correct target) and not section. The link earlier in a different section should stay too, I think, per linking standards. ++Lar: t/c 22:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I always feel like I don't know the rules on linking. Not a big deal - fixing the target was, though. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 07:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• "In 1915, after the SS Eastland disaster, in which the Eastland tipped over while docked in the Chicago River, with the loss of over 800 lives, the Columbus, along with other passenger ships, underwent stability testing" - very awkward sentence, especially the first part
  • Tried breaking this up and reorganizing, I agree it's a bit off, wording wise. We need to sort the multiple ref thing (I'm not convinced it's a bad thing necessarily) but I've done what I could about the rest... thanks for the input! ++Lar: t/c 22:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

A very nice article overall. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 06:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

*The images in the Construction and initial operation at the Columbian Exposition should be moved to the left for high resolution viewers so that there is not lots of blank space even though the article will appear very short for a WP:FA.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 13:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• • I'm very open to moving images around but the problem with having them at left is that we then have some places (at some resolutions) where there are images on both sides of the text, which other reviewers have highlighted as an issue, which is why I went with the imagestack... anyone have ideas (if you look through comments above you'll see that image related comments are a common theme, there appears to be no solution that everyone likes) ++Lar: t/c 18:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Is this OK now? Maralia did a pass which I think looks good. ++Lar: t/c 22:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• May want to use {{double image}} or {{triple image}} to move gallery images into text.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 13:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Why is this better than regular gallery? tighter borders? Let me give it a try and see how it looks. Thanks for your feedback! ++Lar: t/c 18:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    • It is better in the sense that if the images are relevant and illustrate points described in the text, having them proximal to said text makes the article easier to read.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Now I see what you mean, because there are two images to the right of text towards the end, and that does look good! I thought you were just talking about redoing the gallery itself. ++Lar: t/c 22:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• Use {{city-state}} to make Duluth, Everett, Milwaukee and Manotowic separately linkable from the states they are in. I.E. Milwaukee, Wisconsin. That includes the infobox and the image captions.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Cool, I did not know about that template, nifty. ++Lar: t/c 04:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Think I got them all... LMK if I missed any! ++Lar: t/c 04:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
      • At least one (Manitowoc, Wisconsin )--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Think I got them all (again :) ), there were a lot hiding in various places, including cities without states, and in picture captions, etc. :) ++Lar: t/c 02:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
• Does GRT have a metric equivalent? in {{convert}}?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 04:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Tons in nautical usage are a funny thing... see Tonnage for more. I don't know that we know all the different values for her (GRT, NRT, GT, DWT, etc.)... Specifically GRT is a volume measurement (100 cubic feet or 2.83 cubic metres) but it's a calculated and not measured measurement. So I dunno. Maybe give the metric volume equvalent??? thoughts? What do other ship articles do here? ++Lar: t/c 04:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
    • GRT is really only reported for merchant ships, and there are few such FAs. The ones I've looked at do not attempt a conversion for this figure. It's not available in {{convert}}, probably because it's a tricky conversion - before 1982, it was a straightforward 1GRT=100 cubic feet, but now it's a calculation involving logarithms! Because this is an old ship, the 'easy' calculation applies, so I've added a conversion for 1,511 GRT -> 4,279 m³. Maralia (talk) 04:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I'll assume you got the conversion correct.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
• Is it possible to use the wikilink option in the {{convert}} for the first instance of each unit of measure (first in infobox and first in text).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• Done. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

;Source questions

Copied from article talk page. Kablammo (talk) 18:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Questions about footnotes:

Introduction

• fn 2. does not seem to support the assertion about the vessel the longest laker when launched.fixed. Kablammo (talk) 12:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• fn 3-- dead link? (for its first use in article on # passengers carried, fn 2 will substitute.) formatting in footnote 3 fixed (two urls): fn 2 substituted Kablammo (talk) 13:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Background and proposal

• fn 6 does not appear to mention design was met with derision, etc. (fn 1 would work at least in part.) substituted, and additional ref added. Kablammo (talk) 12:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• Three sources were cited for "high speed" of vessel. I removed two as they did not appear to stand for that proposition. One footnote which does mention the speed still remains so the proposition is adequately cited. resolved. Kablammo (talk) 22:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• fn 10. dead link, or are search instructions needed?
  • Appears dead to me. Another site reorg, I guess. I will try to find this later today if I can. ++Lar: t/c 19:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I substituted the "Remember the Whaleback Steamers" fn as it supports it as well. Kablammo (talk) 23:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

(I'll look at other sections later . . .) done. Kablammo (talk) 22:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Kablammo (talk) 01:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

New comments

On dead links: In two footnotes (one of which was used three times, but now is only used once) there were two url = calls; one for the webpage cited, and one for the website of the publisher; this resulted in linking errors. Those have been fixed

Remaining concerns:

• There is still at least one broken link.
• There are still some uncited propositions, or statements which the cited link does not support.
• There may be questions on the reliability of some of the sources-- enthusiast sites rather than more "scholarly" resources. That may simply be reflective of what is available.

Kablammo (talk) 18:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on "There are still some uncited propositions, or statements which the cited link does not support."? Presuming you don't mean the few you listed above (which are now struck as resolved), or the lingering issue of the dead link at footnote 10, I can't figure out to what you are referring. Maralia (talk) 22:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't tagged it but this phrase (in penultimate paragraph of SS_Christopher_Columbus#Construction_and_Columbian_Exposition) should have a source:

another publication dubbed her the "Queen of the Lakes".

There was one, but it didn't support it, so I removed it. I think that and footnote 10 are is my only remaining sourcing concern. Kablammo (talk) 22:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Lar, interesting fact:

This book is an account of ships that have borne the name "Queen of the Lakes," an honorary title indicating that, at the time of its launching, a ship is the longest on the Great Lakes.[1]

This book would a useful source, if anyone can get it at a local library. Kablammo (talk) 23:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Queen of the Lakes

The source for this that I used is a source referenced from within the problematic "bibliography" (The World's Columbian Exposition: A Centennial Bibliographic Guide - By David J. Bertuca, et al) source which we can't see online easily since it's a current book. Try this google search: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22christopher+columbus%22++%22queen+of+the+lakes%22&btnG=Search which yields among other returns, this chunk of text

The World's Columbian Exposition: A Centennial Bibliographic Guide - Google Books Result
by David J. Bertuca, Donald K. Hartman, Susan M. Neumeister - 1996 - History - 440 pages
"Queen of the Lakes: Trip of the New Whaleback Propeller Christopher Columbus From Superior to Chicago....The Finest Excursion Steamer in America. ... 
books.google.com/books?isbn=0313266441...

which goes to this Google Books page: http://books.google.com/books?id=F6cWRxU9go4C&pg=PA146&lpg=PA146&dq=%22christopher+columbus%22++%22queen+of+the+lakes%22&source=web&ots=aOAma8HxWe&sig=OJChMJEdloRHCIvtceDSpwzx19A&hl=en (the infamous page 146, which I can see but which other people, when given direct links to it, sometimes cannot, it varies, which is why I think we ditched it... Maralia suggested just making it a cite book instead of cite web but that's cheating I guess, I've never actually ponied up the 100 USD it would cost to get this book. ) and on that page, for source O226, (by their numbering) it says

"Queen of the Lakes: Trip of the New Whaleback Propeller Christopher Columbus From Superior to Chicago....The Finest Excursion Steamer in America." 'Seaboard 5 (May 25, 1893): 608-610

which I think supports the claim that "one publication dubbed her Queen of the Lakes" :) Wheeeee! ++Lar: t/c 23:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Lar-- I just discovered that myself! (I didn't read far enough down before-- my apologies.) Anyway, I think it looks good! Kablammo (talk) 23:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I broke it out as a separate ref using {{cite journal}} ++Lar: t/c 03:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

(I will cap this section later.)

Comments — Just some minor points:

• "Background and proposal" section, 1st paragraph: Is there perhaps a better phrasing that would avoid the back-to-back McDougalls (which are a little jarring).
• "Construction and Columbian Exposition": 4th paragraph: The spacing between five and minutes looks a little funky . Is the non-breaking space between them needed since the number is spelled out? Also, the "downtown dock" referred to is in Chicago, right?
• Same section, 6th paragraph: Is it necessary to restate the distance of the trip two paragraphs after its first mention?
• Same paragraph: The Virginia was said to have raced on the maiden voyage, or while the Columbus was working the expo?
• "Regular service" section, 2nd paragraph: Can the advertisement be referenced without the nested parentheses?
• Same section, 3rd paragraph: Do the three accidents include the death of the crewman mentioned previously, or is that a different incident?

All-in-all a very good article on an unusual boat — Bellhalla (talk) 15:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• Rephrased to avoid "McDougall. McDougall"
• Dropped the hard space that presumably was added before the number was spelled out.
• No, it's not necessary to mention the distance twice. Thank you for pointing this out; I've been looking for a way to fix that overly long sentence :)
• I don't think Virginia raced her on her maiden voyage; think it's just a strangely placed sentence. Lar?
• Got rid of the nested parens by mentioning the advertisement image with (see advertisement right).
• No, the "three accidents" mentioned are the known accidents of the ship; we haven't found any detail on the single crewman's death during the exposition, and I hesitate to equate that unknown situation with the explicitly sourced explosion and two collisions. Maralia (talk) 16:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)