Talk:MV New Flame

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the MV New Flame article.
Article policies
Good article MV New Flame has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
January 8, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article lacks a ship infobox. You can help WikiProject Ships by copying the source code into the attached article, and filling in the information yourself, or by providing the following information here on the Talk page so that someone else can construct the box.

Contents

[edit] Ideas to expand the stub

[edit] Colision

Conflicting reports are that the ship lies on a reef, whilst other sources state sand bank Figarema 16:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

Link references to specific statements, perhaps expand references and sources Figarema 16:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

done by User:Chris.B thanks! - Figarema 13:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other incidents

Interesting that there have been many incidents near Gibraltar but none apear to be documented or categorised in Wiki Figarema 16:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I think the newly-created category, Category:2007 in Gibraltar, should also help categorise recent events related to Gibraltar. Good work on the article, seems quite exhaustive to me. -- Chris.B 18:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I actually went about it by digging in the internet and then making the article (instead of the other way around),although I didn't sand box as much as I should. I think its done, just keep it uptodate (if they ever refloat it or turn it into a permanent buoy hehe). What do you think? Next one to dig would be Sierra Nava (M/V too?) or even Fotiy krylov, after all it's said to be the 2nd largest tug in the world. -- Figarema 18:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maritime Safety

It is now 2 anti-polution ships, one from Spain, another from the EU. Over reacting? Will the Spanish stand-down and the EU one take over? Has it already? --Figarema |Talk 11:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Not much that can be used in wikipedia, but it looks like the New Flame will remain there for quite sometime, like it has split in three and leaked already. Only oficial point seems to be Gib's goverment disconfort with Spain's EMSA request but nothing on the press-release section.Only new development is press report stating that debris/polutant detected near by is most likely, but not categorically, from New Flame. Reports from the Spanish side of the "oil spill" which may be from New Flame -no body can tell for certain-, Gib's refusal for EU help via Spain, and Spanish criticism to Gib's Governor. It looks like its gathering momentum and something worth mentioning in the article may actually happen. --Figarema |Talk 18:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Same source again [1] stating of intention to change maritine safety rules in the area, however, I haven't found anything more oficial. Anyone can help with some sources? - Figarema |Talk 17:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It has NOT "broken in three", indeed at the time you wrote this it had not broken at all. It did break in two in late december, but there have been no oil spills emanating from this vessel, other than miniscule quantities of light diesel. All the heavy fuel oil was removed months ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.120.231.10 (talk) 15:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Salvage pictures

It would be useful to get pictures when the wreck is finally separated. Also Gib's government has published some salvage diagrams, but I'm not sure of licensing and they are not in the best format (PDF), perhaps someone local could contribute? *eye Ben* - Figarema |Talk 17:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review: On Hold

I have reviewed this article according to the requirements of the GA criteria and have placed the article on hold until the following issues are addressed. As you address each issue, either strike through the statement/place a check mark next to the issue and state how you addressed it. If you disagree with any of the issues I raised, state your rationale for disagreeing after the issue.

  1. Expand the lead a little more to better summarize the rest of the article. See WP:LEAD for guidelines.
  2. Throughout the article there are multiple single and brief two-sentence paragraphs. These should never stand alone and should either be expanded on with more information or incorporated into another paragraph. Fix all of the occurrences in the article.
  3. "...who sold it in 2005 to Transmar for US$ 22.5 million" Add a wikilink for USD and remove the space in between the dollar sign and the 22.5.
  4. "The ship is currently undergoing salvage. The bow of the vessel is resting aground." Merge these two sentences together.
  5. "...and the rapid rescue response at the working level of Spain and Gibraltar may have averted a larger disaster." An inline citation should be added for this.
  6. "Removal of the vessel’s fuel was initiated on August 15 with the arrival of the tug Hua-An[5]," The inline citation should go directly after the punctuation.
  7. "On August 20 the salvage operation could have turned to the controlled break-up of the ship in two halves..." Why is "could have" included in the statement?
  8. "It was reported that 500 tons of fuel remained on board." An inline citation should follow this.
  9. "When it was announced that no oil remains in the wreck,[10] it was also announced that the ship will not be salvaged in a single piece due to structural damage." Reword this to be less redundant so "announced" isn't used twice.
  10. "Instead the ship will be cut in two parts. The cut will be at one-third of its length from the bow." Merge these two sentences together.
  11. "The operation is scheduled to start in October, the removal of the stern should be complete during November and the bow as late as March 2008." Did this start in October and was the stern removed? It should be updated if known. The same thing goes for "During the salvage operation the wreck will be marked with buoys and a one nautical mile (1.9 km) exclusion zone will be declared." Any other statements should be updated to the present tense/past tense based on the progress of the recovery.
  12. "Most of the speculation so far has been on the effect of an oil spil..." "oil spill"
  13. "It is only the ship and its cargo of scrap that remains. [10]" The inline citation should go directly after the punctuation.
  14. The inline citation access dates should be updated to ensure that all of the current links are active. Also citations #1 and #17 should include more parameters (author, organization, publishing date, etc.)

The main thing that needs to be fixed is the brief sentences and the tenses of the information present. By the way, good job on getting the free image of the ship sinking, it really improves the article. I will leave the article on hold for seven days for the above issues to be addressed, and if they are not addressed in that time, the article may be failed. If you have any questions or when you are done, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for your comments. I have seen to your concerns and amended the article accordingly. I'm not sure whether the lead is still too short; I just cannot think of anything else to put in it and have tried to summarise the whole incident as best as possible. If I've left anything out, or something still needs work, just give me a shout. Thanks again! Chris.B (talk) 19:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
PS: The salvage section was also somewhat outdated (much to my surprisement), so I have updated it to reflect the status quo. Chris.B (talk) 19:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA passed

Good job with addressing the above issues. The update of the recovery and new image (make sure to add wikilinks for the full dates in the two captions) are great additions to the article. I have passed this article according to the requirements of the GA criteria. I believe the last section should be reworded from "Possible causes" to something more descriptive of the information present. However, leave it if you can find more information with the current heading. Continue to improve the article, making sure that all new information is properly sourced and neutral.

Also, to anyone that is reading this review, please consider reviewing an article or two at WP:GAN to help with the very large backlog. Instructions can be found here. Each new reviewer that helps to review articles will help to reduce the time that articles wait to be reviewed. Keep up the good work, and I hope that you continue to bring articles up to Good Article status. If anyone disagrees with this review, an alternate opinion can be sought at Good article reassessment. If you have any further questions about this review, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 07:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Title

Hello. There's a problem with this article's name; the forward slash in the "M/V" makes this page subordinated to M (take a look at the top of the talk page). A few editors from WP:Ships, including me, have been working through all of the M/V and M/S articles; moving the pages to correct the problem. Given that this is a GA-class article that likely has several contributors, we thought it would be best to post a notice here before moving, to let everyone here know what's going on and why. The slash should remain in the actual text of the article, per the WP:Ships naming conventions. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 00:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)