Talk:SS Christopher Columbus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the SS Christopher Columbus article.
Article policies
Featured article star SS Christopher Columbus 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. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on August 24, 2007.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Pronoun to reference the Columbus ("she" vs. "it")

I wrote the article initially in the "she" maritime style, with all references using She... we have had some reversion to "it". I am no ship expert or manual of style regarding ship articles expert so maybe "she" was incorrect usage, but I do think discussion might be a good idea. ++Lar: t/c 18:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Unless someone more knowledgeable says so, I would go with "she". Eaglizard 21:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships#Style Guide?, seems to be more or less the thinking there too. ++Lar: t/c 22:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] City of Everett Info

I added a sentence about the City of Everett to correct a completely opposite statement that was in the text. However, I just lifted that from Whaleback, and I have no other cite for it. Does anyone else? Eaglizard 21:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's one... not sure how reliable it is. American Heritage 2001 article It also states 2 engines, not one, and gives top speed as 17 knots. I found it using this search ... I'll update the article if no one else does... That completely opposite statement was introduced by me and clearly I was working from a faulty memory at that point so thanks for the correction. ++Lar: t/c 22:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I've updated to reflect the American Heritage info. That's a good ref, the article could still be expanded with a few other tidbits. Note that it says 1.7M passengers, not 1.8M... ++Lar: t/c 19:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Note that there is now an SS City of Everett article... thanks to Eaglizard! ++Lar: t/c 01:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of October 9, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: The article has both major and minor problems when considering the quality of the writing and compliance with the Manual of Style. First off, the article fails to follow the naming convention for ships correctly. The title of the article should be SS Christopher Columbus. If there was another ship of that name with an article, then the whaleback phrase would be included parenthetically. There is considerable work needing to be done with disambiguation (Example: Pacific Northwest must be linked) and other grammatical style issues such as numbering and dates. In terms of general prose, there should never be single-sentence paragraphs such as those in Regular service. Most of the contents of these are orphaned or misplaced topically, and some are even repetitions of info stated elsewhere.
The article has been renamed. I'm not a fan of spurious links, but I have linked Pacific Northwest. What specific other links do you think are lacking? I've reviewed the article and I didn't see any. I think numbering and dimensions have all already been corrected. The MoS does not require, and in fact discourages, spurious linking of dates. What specific dates do you think need linking? The single sentence paragraphs at the end of regular service have been connected into one. ++Lar: t/c 15:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
2. Factually accurate?: The article fails to provide the bare minimum of inline citations; one at the end of each paragraph and for quotations. Several sections may have diect cites within the body, but without an ending cite it leaves a good deal of other factual claims without an inline reference. The first paragraph of Construction and initial operation at the Columbian Exposition has no citation at all. The other problem with the accuracy of the article is the use of not particularly reliable sources for grandiose claims. When making such a broad statement as "...said to have carried more passengers in her career than any other vessel..." you should cite a source that has strong fact-checking and editorial review. So far as I can tell, the website ship-wreck.com (btw: the link did not work correctly in the ref to that site) has neither of these, making it a questionable source per the definition of WP:V. Less reliance on websites and more on published sources is needed.
I will endeavour to replace sourcing from the postcard site to more reliable sites such as the American Heritage article, and the WCE bibligraphy site but the 1.7, 1.8, 2.0M passenger reference is pervasive. Just about every site one could cite mentions one of those figures and also the claim that this ship carried more passengers than any other on the Great Lakes, or even, any other American flagged ship ever. That has been sourced from three different sources now. Since this is a historic article, published sources require some considerable effort to reference unless they are on the web already. The maritime history site, having scanned images of contemporary documents about the ship, and the BGSU site, are extremely sound in my view. As for a cite at the end of every paragraph, that seems needless. What is important is that every fact, every claim, and every quotation has been cited, not whether there is a cite at the very end of a paragraph. ++Lar: t/c 15:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Going to the library isn't considerable effort. Web-only sources are not your only option. And no, inline citations aren't just for quotes and controversial claims. There must be a cite at the end to cover the whole paragraph, because every fact needs attributing to a source, and for uncontroversial claims that aren't quotes, a general end cite is still necessary. You can't just leave it up to the reader to try and muck out which facts go with which sources. That's not verification. VanTucky Talk 17:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Please provide a pointer to an article that you've personally written or substantially worked on that deals with something out of existence for over 70 years, and where the original sources about its creation are from over 110 years ago, because I'm not sure you're really in tune with how hard it is to actually find sources for things this old. Review the sources provided here: [1] and then tell me which ones cited there you think are likely to be found in some random library. One of the likely best caches of info exists only in one place, the Milwaukee public library, and another possible source is an 1893 Scientific American article. That exists nowhere that I've been able to find yet, and I have access to the nationwide university interlibrary system. That's been my experience with several of the references I chased from that bibliography, they're not available in print. Online sources, when they are tied to reliable printed sources by researchers at sompe in the past, are sufficient. I suggest you need to review WP:RS more closely. and further, I think your review is not in tune with common GA practice, it's far too stringent. It MIGHT be suitable for an FA review, perhaps... I think a second opinion is warranted about this matter. Also, please reread what you're saying about cites. If every fact and quote is tied to a specific cite, there is no need for a blanket cite at the end of the paragraph. In fact, if the paragraph is constructed from facts from several different references, a blanket cite at the paragraph end is more likely to confuse the reader. ++Lar: t/c 19:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
3. Broad in coverage?: In providing a chronology of the subject, the article fails to provide a separate section on the end of the ship's service and where she resides now. Obviously these facts, some of which are given cursory treatment in Regular service, do not belong in any other section.
Please suggest better headings. The ship was scrapped so "where she resides now" shows that perhaps you didn't read closely... she doesn't reside anywhere in particular. However I did add the bit about her anchors being on display, cited from the American Heritage source. ++Lar: t/c 15:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, just poor word choice. I didn't mean 'where she resides now" should be a section header either, that's too verbose. Basically, you need a separate section after Regular service detailing what happened after she was taken out of service, even if it's fairly short. VanTucky Talk 17:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Sure that can be broken out differently. What section title do you want? Second request. ++Lar: t/c 19:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
4. Neutral point of view?: Fair treatment of all significant views.
5. Article stability? Not the subject of any recent or on-going edit wars.
6. Images?: Present and accounted for with proper licenses. As a side note (i.e. not a pass/fail criteria): According to the guidelines of WP:MOS#Images, there are several problems with the placement of images in the article. Images should never, ever be placed on either side of a block of text so as to sandwich it (such as in Regular service). Another issue is that images should not be stacked in a line directly on top of one another. I know placement is difficult in a small article such as this one, so try and avoid the temptation to use images just because they exist. The readability of the text should come first.
Every one of these images is important in showing something about the history or development of the ship, but I've put them all over on the left. There has been considerable flux in image placement. ++Lar: t/c 15:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Closing comments: It is usually customary to provide a hold period for improvements to a GA nominee. However, if the necessary improvements are at all major and would take longer than the maximum hold of a week to complete, a reviewer cannot in good faith do so. In consideration of this, I have summarily failed this article.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a Good article reassessment. Thank you for your work so far. — VanTucky Talk 22:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I think summary failure is unwarranted. A hold would be more appropriate. ++Lar: t/c 15:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but a hold is only appropriate where a major re-write is not required, and I have already failed the article. The necessary requirements in this case constitute a major rewrite, and you seem to fail to understand the general convention of inline referencing that is the GA standard used by all reviewers. The Regular service section needs to be almost completely rewritten and a whole new section must be created from scratch. Those are not minor improvements, and would in my estimation take longer than the max hold period of a week. You are of course welcome to renominate the article, but without completing the changes suggested by a previous review there is little chance of a pass. VanTucky Talk 17:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I think you're wrong. I don't see the need for complete rewrite here. Some minor citation improvement in areas where specific facts didn't get cites (because a cite was given at the end of a paragraph) is really all that is needed here. That's easily doable within a week. Further, I suspect that if another reviewer looks at it, it might well pass as it stands, with just the modifications done to it so far. ++Lar: t/c 19:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I have made a couple of minor changes to the prose to suit my own standards of English apart from that I see no reason why this cannot be a GA. There are no startling unreferenced facts demanding a cite. In fact it seems to be a well written, well referenced, well illustrated and informative page. Giano 22:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • My feelings are firm, and the article still does not meet the GA standard in my evaluation. I will not be reversing my decision, so you need to either renominate the article or file a reassessment. The former of the two choices would be my recommendation if you honestly feel the article meets the criteria, as the backlog at GA/R is really horrendous; an average reassessment taking two months. If you do choose to renominate, I would be happy to allow a new reviewer to step into the proverbial fray. VanTucky Talk 00:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • This really needs to be about evaluation of the criteria under reasonable objective standards, not feelings, and my sense is that you're digging in rather than actually responding to the salient points raised, especially about cites. As for getting another reviewer next time, that might really be for the best... This is not my first article put up for GA, after all, just the first one to fail to pass on the first try. This is a wiki after all so there's no harm in admitting you misevaluated it and undoing your initial decision, or undoing your decision not to allow a hold. ++Lar: t/c 00:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh, lord. Don't take everything so literally. I have never reviewed an article, and certainly not this one, according to my personal feelings. It's about the criteria, and I don't think flaunting the basic precepts of inline citations and thinking you're entitled to a reversal because this is "the first one to fail to pass on the first try" is desirable. Failing a first attempt is not the end of the world, and if you really think the article is ready just renominate it and move on, rather than trying to convince me that my judgment was wrong. VanTucky Talk 01:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

"Flaunting the basic precepts of inline citations"? What hyperbole. I don't claim to be entitled to a reversal, or to anything of the sort, I claim that you've possibly done a poor job of evaluating this article, as evidenced by a previously uninvolved FA article writer, Giano, stating he sees no reason for your downcheck. By not even being willing to give it a hold, you are going to waste everyone's time by forcing it to get run through a backlogged system again, needlessly, rather than admit that it's even possible this article can be corrected in a week. You seem quite process oriented, I must say. You've shown that you're so inflexible that it's clear I shouldn't waste any more time trying to convince you of anything, you've found something to downcheck it for, your feelings are firm, and logic has nothing to do with it. I'm just curious what articles you've actually written from scratch about topics this old. Or about any topics for that matter... I don't recall seeing you around on WP:DYK much. ++Lar: t/c 04:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

  • I don't understand what kind of criteria would stop this article from being assessed as a Good Article. I have gathered that any comparison with or even mention of FAC process is likely to be resented by many people who work with GA,[2] so I won't go there; but I'm not aware of any process, except apparently GA, which has such a formulaic/ruleslawyerish requirement as "every paragraph must end in a footnote, regardless of other citations in the paragraph." (If it really does have that requirement?) I've never written an article that lived up to that. My advice to Lar would be to find some skilled but uninvolved writer to give it a copyedit (for there are some prose infelicities, which a fresh pair of eyes could easily fix) and then take the article straight to FAC. Bishonen | talk 08:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC).
  • This is the most pickaninny application of the inline citations essay that I have come across ever. I encourage the GA reviewer to reread GA criteria—and for that matter FA criteria—and to reevaluate his own personal GA standards in light of policy. I note that both of his own FA articles contain multiple paragraphs without citations. Maralia 11:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
To be frank, I don't realy see the point of GA, it is only ever one persons's opinion and at best a "poor man's FA" - the whole thing is really quite meaningless. FAs are not that hard to write and from what I have seen here probably a lot less stressful. Giano 12:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm a fan of GA because it isn't just one person's opinion, or at least it ought not to be. It's a co-operative process, with reviewer and editors working together to improve the article. --Malleus Fatuarum 00:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • So predictable...step 1: reviewer fails a poor article. step 2:article's authors whine rather than just moving forward. step 3: people blame the failure of said article on the bad, bad GA process and its delinquent reviewers. You could at least be original with your ranting. VanTucky Talk 23:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
This is not a 'poor' article. What is 'poor' is your understanding of citation criteria. Your attitude does not even merit description as 'poor'. Maralia 00:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I think that your comments are way out of line VanTucky. This is clearly not a "poor article", but you made a decision to quick-fail it based on your understanding of the GA criteria. That's done, that's history. This bickering is bringing no credit at all to the review process, and I'd encourage you to step away from it. --Malleus Fatuarum 00:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
You might look at the history of the article Malleus. It was a very poor article when I failed it. Otherwise, advice gladly accepted. VanTucky Talk 00:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I can read a calendar. You quick-failed this article on the 9th October. Today is the 13th of October, at least in my time zone. If it was able to be improved so much in those few days then it clearly ought to have been placed on hold. As it is, all that's been achieved is to discredit the GA process and to piss off a group of committed editors. Nice work. --Malleus Fatuarum 01:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Please cite your repeated assertion that "the bare minimum of inline citations [is] one at the end of each paragraph and for quotations". This is contraindicated by thousands of passed articles, and I fail to find support for your assertion in GA or even FA criteria. Maralia 01:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
If I may say so Maralia, I think that little can be achieved by repeatedly challenging VanTucky over the decision that (s)he took to quick-fail this article. You don't agree with, and I don't agree with it, but it's done. I'm sure that (s)he made the decision in good faith, regardless of who now thinks it was right or wrong. What needs to be done now is to address whichever of VanTucky's comments you think has merit, and then to resubmit the article for another GA review. --Malleus Fatuarum 01:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not trying to challenge the fail; frankly, I would much rather be done with this particular review and move on. However, I am seriously concerned that either the reviewer does not properly understand and restate the citation criteria for GA, or some major creep on citation criteria has occurred without being documented. I do not think I would be doing the GA process any favors by dropping that issue, as it is a crucial one. Maralia 01:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I understand that, and I somewhat agree with you about "creep". Perhaps you'd like to raise this issue at WP:WGA? --Malleus Fatuarum 02:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moving forward

I've been fighting vandalism on another wiki for a while, giving me a chance to have some remove from this for a bit and to approach with a fresh eye. It seems to me that the key point of the DYK process, the GA process, and the FA process, and the peer review process and other processes is not the badges one collects, it's to make better articles, for the benefit of our readers.

I think calling this article "poor" at the time it was nominated is a bit of a stretch. I wouldn't have nominated it if I (and others) didn't think it was good. But there have been significant changes to it already. So where do we stand? Many of VanTucky's comments ("article's authors whine rather than just moving forward." which shows that he hasn't been viewing the article history to see the many changes made, he's just dug in) haven't really been ones I could make much use of to improve the article, they were just disparagements. Where I could understand what he was driving at, and where I agreed with him, I made changes. So did others. I asked a large number of questions that admitted of specific answers but got fobbed off with suggestions that I don't understand how to cite things, or am not willing to go to the library, etc... both of which are hogwash, I suspect I was going to the library to do Masters degree level research before VanTucky was born...

What actually needs doing yet? Please give specific examples if you can. Please also address the larger issue of whether this article has adequate references, placed in a way to help the reader understand, verify, and get more information, rather than whether they are "one at the end of each paragraph" or whatever... The reader's benefit is more important than a style guide. Or internecine fighting. I'm willing to overlook immaturity and process irregularities here if we can move this article forward. Because that's what really matters, making a better encyclopedia, not whose toes are stepped on. ++Lar: t/c 22:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

To be fair to VanTucky's review, this article is certainly not at GA level as yet. " ...the Columbus cut a natty figure ...", "The ship was launched at that point ...", "... resting atop the 6 relatively large turrets ..." ...
The only significant disagreements I would have with the previous review would be over the citation requirement and the decision to quick-fail this article instead of placing it on hold. It's a pretty short article and it could have been transformed in 7 days. I firmly believe that VanTucky acted in good faith, but (s)he was perhaps unwise in getting involved in the post-review fallout. If you nominate this article again I will undertake to do the GA review; I'm sure that together we can get it to a well-deserved GA listing. --Malleus Fatuarum 23:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I was rather proud of the turn of phrase "cut a natty figure" as it's a synthesis of several of the laudatory comments of the time about how jaunty and fun to sail the ship was... we are supposed to strive for brilliant prose, after all, not just a dry recitation of facts. This ship carried somewhere between 1.7 and 2M passengers, in the span of one sailing season, which was several times the entire population of Chicago, so it must have been popular, there were other ways to get to the fair. We do the reader a disservice if we don't engage them (which is also why I used the " and he did just that" phrasing elsewhere). I'm open to suggestions though, how would you rephrase it? "Launched at that point" seemed to make sense at the time I wrote it... would "launched in that point in the construction sequence" or "launched at that time" be better? Different ships are launched at different points in their construction sequence, after all, and it's of some relevance that this one was launched with no superstructure at all, all the superstructure (passenger decks) were added after she was afloat. "Relatively large turrets" could stand rephrasing, what do you suggest? The turrets are a good portion of the whole width of the hull, as can be seen from the photos, but exact dimensions were not something I could find... they're much larger than the turrets of other whalebacks, which often are only 10-20 feet in diameter, since they are only holding small aft deckhouses. Again, I'm very open here, what do you suggest about all of these. Perhaps someone else needs to take a whack at the prose, as Bishonen suggested above, I'm far too close to it, I pored over every word of every reference I could find in writing this. ++Lar: t/c 01:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
It was the "resting atop the 6 relatively large turrets" that I was dubious about. Seems pretty formal/archaic, especially in conjunction with the rather more colloquial "cut a natty figure". We have to strive for "professional, even brilliant" prose, but we also have to write in an encyclopedic style. That doesn't mean that articles become dry recitations of fact though. The trick is to get the balance right. If "cut a natty figure" was a direct quote, properly referenced, there would be no objection to it. But it isn't, and without a source it appears to be just your opinion. To be fair, I don't see an awful else in the prose to be concerned about though. --Malleus Fatuarum 16:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I've just had another quick look through the article. There are a few bits that need some clarification – "The Columbus was intended to further publicise the whaleback design, and to demonstrate that it would work in passenger service and would enable high speed." – enable high speed what? But that's just one of a very few examples. I've got no doubt that this article is now more than ready to be nominated as a GA again. --Malleus Fatuarum 16:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I've reworded the "speed" thing, using a quote from the "Marine Record" where the plans for the ship were discussed prior to her being built. That ref also might serve as a way to cite the stuff about the turrets more tightly and perhaps reword that again to get rid of flow problems. I cut the "cut a natty figure" but I'd love to find a way to convey to the reader (by the right facts in the right order) that this was a fun ship to sail on. As I said, it must have been... 1.7 to 2M passengers did that year, and she had competition. But the actual "fun" bit is lost in time, I guess. If you have any ideas, please take a crack. Also I found a ref for the racing with the Virginia statement (that Bishonene was concerned about) and while digging, found that she had an explosion in 1895, possibly also while racing the Virginia... that was not previously in the article. So there's now a bit at the end of "regular service" that breaks out her accidents a bit better. Dunno if it needs to be a separate para. It's a bit choppy because I also found she was one of the first ships to carry a wireless... If you think this is ready to try GA again, let's go for it. I can renom it whenever you say the word. ++Lar: t/c 04:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The only obvious problem I can see is the left placement of some of the images. There shouldn't be a left-aligned image immediately under a section/subsection header, because that tends to divorce the heading from the body of the text. I'd also try staggering the images left-right instead of listing them down the left hand side. But those are just minor formatting issues that can be easily fixed. I think this article is more than ready enough now to be re-nominated as a GA. --Malleus Fatuarum 15:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Please take a cut at the image placements if you want! At least 3 or 4 people have tried and we haven't cracked it yet... no alignment seems to be free of some problem or another. I did remove a large number of images. I personally like the left/right placement but depending on how you resize that sometimes results (at very wide browser widths) in images on both sides of the same text. I suspect everyone that's had a hand in this is totally open to any rearrangement anyone else wants to try. ++Lar: t/c 18:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2nd GA review

OK, let's get this show on the road. :)

comments interspersed. ++Lar: t/c 20:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I can see that there's been an awful lot of good work done by the editors over the last week, but there's still just a smidgeon left to do I think before I can list it as a GA.

  • I mentioned the image issue earlier; left-aligned images ought not to be positioned immediately under a section/subsection header, as that tends to divorce the text from its heading; I'll see if I can find a way of sorting that myself, in view of Lar's comment when I mentioned that earlier.
Thanks. Images are my bugbear. I think it's because I run with 1400px wide resolution. ++Lar: t/c 20:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • There are a few prose issues which sound strange to my ears, but bear in mind I've never captained a steamship, or been an engineer on one, so the phrasing may be perfectly reasonable in context. I'll just draw attention to what sounds awkward to me.
  • " ... she provided a general service to various excursion ports ..." Can excursion be used as an adjective like that? What is an "excursion port"?
I've never captained a steamship either :) Ya, that seems off somehow. My research indicates that by the 1890s, there was a pretty extensive rail network in place in that part of the Midwest and people travelling from Chicago to Milwaukee, for example, tended to go by train unless they were travelling for fun... hence, this was "excursion service", meaning that Milwaukee was an excursion destination for Chicago people and vice versa... reword suggestion welcome. I tried "Later, she provided general and excursion service to various ports around the lakes." ++Lar
Note also from the Mariners' Museum site: [3] it is related (in describing a preserved door knob assembly) that she had no staterooms, cabins, and so forth, as a liner that did more than day trips would have. That also might account for the very high passenger capacity relative to length and beam. Not sure how to pull that out into something useful for the article, suggestions welcomed. 20:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • "Two of her anchors are displayed at the Mariners' Museum ..." I'm not absolutely certain I understand what that's saying. Why doesn't it say "in the Mariners' Museum"?
I think they're outside. That seems to be typical for anchors. It's what the cite said, "but two of its anchors, specially designed by McDougall, survived and can be seen today at the Mariners’ Museum, in Newport News, Virginia. They are as unorthodox as the whaleback design itself, with an odd-looking triangular shape." ... I don't have a cite that PROVES they're outside but I just used the cite's wording choice of "at" vs. "in"... ++Lar
  • ... until she was finally sold to a scrapper." Sounds a bit too informal for an encyclopedia article. What about " sold for scrap"?
Changed. Manitowoc Shipbuilding Co seemed to be primarily a scrapper at that point rather than a new stock builder. Also the BGSU site actually suggests they were not the last owner so I fixed that. ++Lar
  • "... a steam pipe disconnect". Is that the same as a disconnected steam pipe?
How about "an explosion caused by a steam pipe disconnection while under way"? ++Lar
  • Quite a bit of the First whalebacks section is concerned with the Charles W. Wetmore, not the Columbus. I'd recommend considering a merge of the first two sections – with a {{see also}} to the main whaleback article. This is an article about the SS Christopher Columbus, not whalebacks, after all. Good to give a brief overview of what the whaleback design was all about, but I think there's maybe too much background being given. Perhaps call the merged section something like History, or Background? Similarly, in the Regular service section there's some history about the City of Everett that I don't see is relevant to the Columbus.
Both the Wetmore and the Everett need articles of their own, someday, some of that material needs to go there eventually. The relevance here is that the Wetmore proved the design to overseas and NYC investors, and the Everett being the only ship produced by the new yard apparently sealed the fate of the Columbus to be a one off. But ya, it could be cut I guess. Hate to lose it because I'm not ready to write either of those others yet. ++Lar
  • Why not copy cut & paste the relevant material over and just make those articles stubs for now? --Malleus Fatuarum 20:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • That material by itself probably isn't enough even for a stub, it would be in the middle with no context. I'm too close, perhaps someone else could try cutting it and rewording... (I can fish it out of the revision history if and when) the sense needs to be that McDougall was agressive in trying lots of things to make this design a success, the CC being one of many... but ultimately, despite having a lot of patents and considerable reputatiion, he failed. ++Lar: t/c 21:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • "She was one of the first ships to get a wireless, as radios were called in those days" I'm not sure I see the benefit of getting into that level of detail. Why not just say that she was the first ship to be equipped with radio, and wikilink radio to the History of radio article, as wireless is currently linked?
Fixed per your suggestion with a dash of additional rewording. ++Lar
  • Was the Columbus built specifically for the Columbian Exposition? At whose expense, McDougall's?
That one needs more research but the 1891 article certainly suggests that. more later ++Lar
The American Heritage site, cited elsewhere in the article for other stuff, says "When the 1893 Chicago world’s fair, known as the Columbian Exposition, was being planned as a celebration of the achievements of modern society in the arts, science, and technology, McDougall recognized a prime chance to publicize his unlikely design. He conceived a passenger whaleback as an elaborate ferryboat to carry visitors the six miles between downtown Chicago and the fairgrounds at Jackson Park." The Marine Record [4] (cited in that para) also talks about McDougall's motivations... McDougall's company, American Steel Barge Company (needs an article, as of now it's just a redirect to the successor company), built it, and the ship was operated by the "Columbian Whaleback Steamship Company" until it was leased to Goodrich in 1899. McDougall appears to have been in charge of that outfit too, at least at the outset, since it's his signature on the pass (one of the illustrations)... By inference it's obvious he was behind it. As to at whose expense, presumably some corporate entities expense (ASB the builder and CWSC the operator) but exactly who paid for what might be hard to determine. All we can do is present this info and let the reader draw the same conclusion. What do you suggest? ++Lar: t/c 20:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I think that fact that McDougall saw the Exposition as an opportunity to publicize his design is good information, and should be in the article. --Malleus Fatuarum 20:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I tried another reword. ++Lar: t/c 21:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

That's pretty much all I can see for now that I think needs some attention. As is traditional on these occasions I'm now placing this article on hold pending our agreement on the issues I've raised. --Malleus Fatuarum 19:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks... I think I got most of your concerns... ++Lar: t/c 20:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

A few notes about the anchors/the Mariner's Museum:

  • I've added an interwiki link to the article on Mariners' Museum.
  • I found a source here to confirm that one anchor from the CC is at this museum. They list other artifacts from the CC, but no other anchors.
  • It's entirely possible the anchor is at rather than in the museum - it's fairly common to see this type of artifact outside at maritime museums, and it is listed as 12 feet long by 5 feet wide. Maralia 20:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Entirely possible, and quite likely, as you say. --Malleus Fatuarum 20:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


RE "Scotch" boilers: http://www.steamboats.com/museum/engineroom6.html

"... an extremely strong boiler"
" One author says of the Scotch Boiler, "Their quick steaming ability and compactness make them particularly adaptable to marine and industrial use...""
"The Scotch boiler's self-contained design drastically reduced the quantity of bricks used for support and flues. Less bricks, less weight and therefore less draft of the boat. Or, looking at it another way, the more cargo a steamboat could carry and the more profit for the owners."

Note: the series begins here, and is really quite interesting. Maralia 22:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

That properly belongs in the Boiler article I think, but I've put it in as a ref here for now. I agree, while the writing is not up to our standards I found it quite a fun read. It seems a Scotch boiler is in some ways like a typical railway steam loco boiler with fire tubes, but it doesn't have the separate firebox and crownsheet that railway boilers have... ++Lar: t/c 22:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recap

So where do we stand? From my read the following are still outstanding

  • Image placement (VanTucky took a try, (thanks!!!!) it works for me... BUT I am a horrid judge of it.)
  • The excess detail about the Wetmore and Everett needs excision.

Anything else? I think most of the rest was addressed? ++Lar: t/c 23:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


Yes, I think you've pretty much addressed most of my issues, so here's where I think we are now.
  • I had a go at realigning the images, and they look fine to me now. My main concern was the left-aligned images immediately below section/subsection headers, and that's fixed now.
  • It would be nice to see the detail about the Wetmore and the Everett moved out to stubs, but I won't stick on that, because I'm sure you'll do that in time anyway.
  • I've just got two further things I'd like to see changed, both to do with the inline citations curiously enough:
  • In the {{cite web}} template, you're using the "accessmonthday" and the "accessyear" arguments. It's better to use the "accessdate" argument, as in accessdate=2007-08-18, because that way the date is autoformatted in the references. I've changed the first half dozen references to show you what I mean.
  • This one might make you laugh; either that or tear your hair out in frustration. In some places I think that you're actually giving too many references, making the text look a bit cluttered.
  • "... some claim that this happened during a race with her perennial[22] rival, Virginia.[23]" A citation for "perennial" seems a bit OTT.
  • "In 1899 the Columbus was leased to and operated by the Goodrich Transit Line,[17][18][19][20] whose steamer Virginia had raced her in 1893." I'd suggest generally putting the references at the end of the sentence ayway, some people don't like references part-way through a sentence, but one or two would be enough. If that means that there are some references that you want to make the reader aware of, but you don't then use them in your own citations, then put them in a new See also section before the References section.
And that's it. Just a bit of housekeeping on the references required now as far as I'm concerned. Good work. Just a wee bit more and we're home and dry.
--Malleus Fatuarum 00:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
You've lost me on the refdate change... if those other parms are now deprecated I have a lot of cites to change in a lot of articles (hmm... perhaps there's an AWB regex floating around that can do it)... I use the separated style because it gives a nicer looking date, to me anyway, with dates set to defaults in my prefs, and because that's how I saw everyone else doing it. But that's not a biggie, easy enough to change, just gruntwork. On the ref reorgs... ya. I'll see what I can do. I suspect that a ref midsentence suggests that there is actually more to say than just one sentence, for example, instead of just reffing "perennial" I should somehow figure out how to work into the article that it did seem like those two raced a lot... there were reports of racing in at least 1893, 1895 and 1896... ironic, because in 1899 the Virginia's owners leased the CC... I wonder if they still raced after that. But I digress, your suggestion is well founded. ++Lar: t/c 11:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I've made all the changes to the {{cite web}} templates for the accessdate parameter, so it's just your last point above on the reference reorganisation waiting to be addressed now. --Malleus Fatuarum 17:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Update: I probably just missed this before, but the lead says that '... the ship was at the time of her launching the longest whaleback ever built, and reportedly also the longest vessel on the lakes, earning her the unofficial title of "Queen of the Lakes"'. But that's not mentioned again later in the article, and there's no reference given in the lead. Also, ref. #2 says that the Columbus had only two decks when first built, but this article talks about the ship being fitted with "four superstructure decks". --Malleus Fatuarum 17:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • OK a few things :) First, serves me right for cribbing from the Whaleback article way back at the start. The "Queen of the Lakes" thing was cribbed from there, (most of the lead started out as a lift of the CC section of that article) and that article has no inline sourcing, just a ref list at the end, it's old style. The statement is sourcable, for example the CE bibliography here has it, as do many of the other sources (perhaps because they all got it from the same place??), but as it turns out, that term has been given to a lot of boats over the years, so it should come out of the lead, I suspect. MAYBE mention it in the CE section as another one of the several accolades/compliments given her. (while on the topic of how nifty she was, would an interior shot add anything? I know of at least one at Brendan's postcard site). On the decks thing.. Almost every ref I've seen has her being built with 4 decks, I'll have to do some ref cleanup to get that properly aligned when I go through things to correct the other overreferencing. Finally, the Whaleback article already contains most of the Wetmore and Everett stuff so cutting that stuff won't lose anything... I just need someone else to possibly do the surgery, I'm better at adding than cutting :) ++Larbot - run by User:Lar - t/c 19:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I think an interior shot would be a great addition. I know how hard it can be to delete one's own fine prose, so I'll volunteer to cut out some of the Wetmore and Everett stuff. I'll try to be gentle. --Malleus Fatuarum 20:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Drat. I remember now why I didn't take any of the three interiors here: http://www.ship-wreck.com/shipwreck/projects/columbus/cc.html ... because they weren't postcards and therefore could not be definitively claimed to be PD based on publication date. I could fair use one I guess but I'd rather not... I'll write Brendan again (I don't think I got a reply the first time) sometime soon. ++Lar: t/c 00:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More sources

I can't believe this hasn't occurred to me before, but: "The World's Fair of 1893, a commemoration of the 400th anniversary of Christopher Columbus' voyage to the New World"[5] Gee, I wonder where they got the name for the ship!

I don't think the article actually says anything about the name. I was too close to realise that it needs explaining. So that would be a good thing to add. ++Larbot - run by User:Lar - t/c 20:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, not a great source, but this gave me a chuckle: "In those days, the Steamship Christopher Columbus, known affectionately as "The Whaleback", used to bring daily a great crowd of excursionists from Chicago. During their shore leave, most of them took a rubber-neck tour of Milwaukee, and Schlitz Brewery was a favorite stop-off both for reasons of history and of hospitality." [6] Maralia 00:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe that's what they call a "beer run" ... Brings new meaning to the term "excursion" :) ++Lar: t/c 01:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I think I'll bring that in to the article, along with the ad illustration showing a 1.50 fare to MLW from Chicago which is on Brendan's page... although I wonder what is meant by "rubber-neck" tour? Milwaukee's buildings weren't nearly as tall as Chicagos... ++Lar: t/c 11:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I promise I'll shut up now, but that 1917 "collision with a tower" was eating away at me, so I did some research. Turns out it was a water tower, and two sources say that 18 people died in that accident. Maralia 03:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Good sleuting Maralia, thanks!!!! Unless someone else does, I'll be adding this stuff either today or tomorrow, depends on externalities. "incidents" may warrant being its own subsection (head level 3??) maybe?? I guess I can see why VanTucky didn't think a hold was warranted, what with all the new stuff being addded and all, we've blown the original week. But the article is really coming along, and we should be done by the end of this hold period, even with all the adds. ++Lar: t/c 11:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

In an incredibly eerie coincidence, an editor at Alice Bailey noticed a copyedit fix I made there, visited my User page, saw that I'm interested in ships, and asked me to review an article he wrote a while ago on . . . SS City of Everett. Really, I have no words. Maralia 21:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

cool. Eagalizard said he/she was going to take a crack at it. See the second topic of this talk page. Some of the sources used here have pictures of her so... :) BUT need to finish this one first. ++Larbot - run by User:Lar - t/c 21:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I have a word for that: spooky :) --Malleus Fatuarum 23:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recap part Deux

OK, this talk page is about to pass being 3x the article's length in characters, I think. :) ... if it hasn't already. NOW where do we stand? I just have taken a pass at this, fixing various things

  • The Wetmore/Everett detail was excised, thanks Malleus!... I ended up putting a greatly abridged version back, as I wanted to tie the promotional aspect of this together...
  • I've generally tried to shift and thin references down to be reasonable. May not have got them all.
  • The "Queen of the lakes" thing was moved to the section about her operation at the WCE along with the "marvel of the age" quote, it seemed to fit there. She wasn't queen for long anyway.
  • I put the name source in, at the end of the motivation paragraph, citing the CPL source.
  • I put the Schlitz beer reference in, reworking that para to clarify what sort of service she was in. I also added the ad showing her operation and schedule. But it has to be FU, unf. as I can't definitively place it as pre 1923. The images in that area are getting pinched again though.
  • I added additional detail on the water tower incident. I also moved the racing stuff around to get it to flow better I think, and made the three accidents parallel.
  • I found something neat about the stability testing she underwent after the eastland disaster and added that.
  • Unless we go FU I can't find an interior photo to use, unf.

What do you guys think? Done yet? or more nits yet? ++Lar: t/c 21:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

  • That'll do as far as I'm concerned, no more nits from me. I think you've done a great job with this article and it well deserves to be listed as a GA, which I'll do shortly. In fact I think it's probably not that far off being an FA candidate now. Congratulations. --Malleus Fatuarum 22:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  • You're too modest, there were a LOT of crucial edits from you as well, thanks very much. ++Lar: t/c 23:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

  1. The new commercial vessel infobox has been substituted, as the other one did not allow for a tonnage field, but only permitted displacement, which is different. See Tonnage#Tonnage_measurements.
  2. The figure given for draught (or draft) is actually listed as depth in the sources, which also is not the same. See Hull_(watercraft)#Metrics. The templates do not appear to support depth. The full template does have a field for Ship hold depth but that may not be applicable to this passenger vessel. Perhaps changing the template to just depth would be appropriate.
  3. The infobox contains a field for yard number, which I filled in, but for some reason does not display. [Fixed by TomTheHand-- thanks!]
  4. On my screens, there is a slight horizontal offset between the stable field names in the left column, and the variable data appearing thereafter in the right. This shows up on and below the Builder field, with the lines in the second column slightly lower. I have not been able to fix that. Kablammo 13:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I've fixed the yard number issue, but it may take a few minutes to propagate to here. The horizontal offset issue is caused by the citations. They hit the top of the box and push the text downward. I don't know of any way to solve that. Let me think about the "depth" issue for a little bit, because I believe I've seen a similar figure for warships on occasion and I want to make sure to get the terminology right so that one box can serve both purposes. TomTheHand 17:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the new box, guys. It has been suggested to me that all the cites should be moved out to the inline text. That would fix it. Many of the early cites are first used there, but some of the later ones are first used in the text. What do you think of that idea?++Lar: t/c 01:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Good idea I think. It generally doesn't matter where the references are given (biographies and quotations excepted), so long as they're given somewhere. --Malleus Fatuarum 03:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't think it is necessary to have inline cites for the infobox (especially if no one demands them and the information is not controversial) if the source for the data is otherwise cited in the text or general references. The offset caused by the footnotes is not a big deal; I just wondered if we could lose it. Kablammo 14:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It's no secret that I have designs on this article as a potential FA candidate, is it? (grin) For that reason maybe I was over referencing things, and I'd be happy to see all the refs pulled out of the infobox. One downside of the current ref system we use is that the first ref has to be the one with the meaty stuff... citeweb templates etc, which makes the infobox harder to edit since some of the lines are so long. I'd love to see a style guide ref somewhere saying that refs aren't needed in infoboxes (as a defence against a potential FA quibble)! ++Lar: t/c 18:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

OK I went ahead and removed the refs from the infobox. A loose end: the info about who built the boiler and engines is not mentioned anywhere else in the article so now it's uncited. Thoughts? ++Lar: t/c 14:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and on point 2, above. the hold depth may well matter (although I don't know what it is) because it's now clear to me at least that her decks as built were as follows (from the top) two above the turrets, the turrets themselves, and one inside the hold (at least part of the hold apparently had passenger accomodations in the form of a lunchroom or snack bar, although certainly a good part of the hold was taken up with boilers, the coalbin, water tanks, machinery spaces, etc. I have not been able to locate any design diagrams for her.) ++Lar: t/c 14:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
The measurement of depth has varied over time, and was used to compute tolls. Depth of hold is just that, how deep the ship's hold is; depth or moulded depth appears to be measured from exterior dimensions regardless of the hold dimensions. [7] (under Depth, Moulded). As the present (full) template has a field only for ship hold depth, the table will not display a depth figure taken from exterior dimensions. Kablammo 15:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More suggestions for improvement

(by Maralia... my replies interspersed and marked with ++L... no comment means I agree. others please chime in too!) ++Lar: t/c 06:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Fixed sections marked with <<< ++Lar: t/c 04:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • "Later, she provided a general and excursion service to various ports around the lakes." : I dislike "a general and excursion service". How about "general services and excursions"?
    • General service is scheduled, excursion service is to go places at request (chartered). Some rewording might help. ++L
  • "McDougall, a Scottish immigrant, Great Lakes captain, inventor,[6] and entrepreneur, developed the idea of the whaleback as a way to improve the ability of barges to follow a towing vessel in heavy seas." : Did he really develop the idea as a way to improve...?
    • heh. I think so. He worked on the idea for 7 years before the first one was built, per some sources I just found that need introducing into the article (some quite new stuff I hadn't found before, has a good description of her interior too) ++L
  • "Whalebacks were characterized by distinctive hull shapes with rounded tops, lacking conventional sides" : It's unclear what "lacking conventional sides" modifies here.
    • The hull. Most conventional hulls have sides above the decks. Reword? ++L
  • "The cabins and other fittings were mounted on rounded turrets that water could flow round, giving a somewhat unusual appearance" : "flow round" is probably too colloquial for FA.
  • "After he was unable to persuade existing shipbuilders to try his designs, he founded the American Steel Barge Company in Superior, Wisconsin in 1888 and built them himself" : Existing is redundant here.
    • Not really. This maybe belongs in the Whaleback article (where the wording came from), or the as yet unwritten bio of him, but he really struggled... the existing conveys the idea that no one that built ships would build them, he had to start a company himself to get them built. But reword away. See this for a bit about his struggles. ++L
  • "The bottom, and hull framing, with 9 bulkheads, completed on September 13, 1892, were constructed first, then the six Scotch boilers[13][12] and the two triple-expansion steam engines were installed, followed by the rounded hull top and the six turrets." : Comma attack! How about "The hull framing, which included nine bulkheads, was completed on September 13, 1892. The next phase of construction saw the installation of six Scotch boilers and two triple-expansion steam engines, followed by the rounded hull top and six turrets." <<< (while adding more construction info) ++L
  • "The ship was then launched, on December 3, 1892, after which two superstructure decks were added, mounted on the six relatively large (compared to whaleback freighter designs) turrets along the centerline of her hull, which afforded access to her two internal decks in the hull and turrets." : I want to rephrase this, but I don't have any great ideas for it at the moment. <<< (while adding more construction info) ++L
    • This area needs expansion, the sources I have say that records may have been set for how fast this ship was built, they assert that a ship of over 300ft being built in under 6 months was unheard of at the time. I don't know for sure if that's true or not, but these sentences would get changed around a lot during such an expansion I suspect. (see this source page 2 I think) ++L
  • "Beaux arts" links to a disambig page; linking to Beaux-Arts architecture might be more appropriate, but I'm not sure.
  • "In recognition of this success, the commissioners of the Exposition presented Captain McArthur with a gold watch engraved with a representation of the ship on the back." : Awkward; can we drop "on the back"?
    • Do we know what kind of watch it was? Wrist watch? Pocket watch? -- !! ?? 14:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Almost certainly a pocket watch-- wristwatches were not generally used until 2nd decade of 20th century. Kablammo 16:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
        • I thought that was probably the case - he received it in 1893, no? Could it have been a hunter, with an engraved front cover? Interesting to see from here that wrist watches were around from the 1790s - essentially pocket watches on a bracklet - but were long thought to be novelties, or ladies' jewelery. The wrist watch came into vogue for military use, particular from the Boer War onwards, with precisely synchronised military operations, and took off in the First World War. -- !! ?? 17:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  • "Although she did excursions elsewhere" : This is awkward; can we just drop the phrase, or do you think it's important?
    • Yes. That's the "general and excursion service" thing again. She roamed the lakes (on her days off??) despite being a liner in daily Chicago/MLW service most of the time. ++L
  • "Columbus had at least three known accidents." : "had at least three" or "had three known"; "at least three known" is redundant.
    • I suspect she had some more that were not documented at the time, but can't prove it. Reword away. ++L
  • "One of her anchors (the design was patented by McDougall on February 3, 1891)[32][33] is displayed at the Mariners' Museum in Newport News, Virginia." : This patent comment is likely to be challenged at FA without a better source. I did a little research and didn't find one; do you think the comment is important enough to keep digging?
    • Source for what? I thought I linked the Google patent page which gave the date and a drawing of the anchor, it's an odd beast... Did that source go away in the article? Here it is again: [8] Or a source that the chain of custody is valid and this anchor really is from the CC? Not sure what you mean here ++L
      • I can't believe I overlooked the Google patent link. We're good, then, although I'd suggest working this fact into the Construction section when you expand that. -M
  • Capitalization of "Exposition" is inconsistent.
  • Suggest changing the language about Virginia/Blue Ridge and Frank Rockefeller/Meteor. I think it would be less confusing to only use the contemporary names for these ships. The leads of the linked articles should clearly explain the ships' renaming history.
    • I'd rather we used only the names used at that time rather than the contemporary ones... that the first powered ship was the Colgate Hoyt is important, he was a Rockefeller money man... The City of Everett carried Rockefeller oil, etc... but again maybe that all belongs in the Whaleback article not here. ++L
      • I meant then-contemporary names; we are in agreement. -M
  • Why does the infobox list Goodrich as owner separately for 1909-1921 and 1921-1933?
I added this when I switched the template. As the new template supported ownership history, I added the information, taking it from the ship-wreck.com website[9] already cited in the article:
  • Third Owner: Goodrich Transit Co. (ME) Milwaukee, WI U.S. 1909 - 1921
  • Fourth Owner: Goodrich Transit Co. (DE) Milwaukee, WI U.S. 1921 – 1933
I don't know what the difference is between the (ME) and the (DE) editions of Goodrich. I left the parentheticals out, perhaps they should be added, or perhaps the ownership history isn't that important for the infobox and article. Kablammo 16:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I think this is a corporate thing, they moved their HQ from Maine to Delaware. That may not really matter in the grand scheme of things but that is how the BGSU site records the info. We need to decide what to do there. I do agree with taking things out of the infobox like the engine and ownership details... ++Lar: t/c 17:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm starting to feel like I could recite this in my sleep! :) Maralia 04:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Your comments are very helpful!!! ++Lar: t/c 06:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Added one item at end & responded to a couple; will work on rephrasing other parts per the above. When you expand Construction, let's move the facts RE the engine & boiler builders out of the infobox into Construction; it's not really standard to have that level of detail in a ship infobox, and it will have the added benefit of shortening the box and hopefully squaring up formatting a bit (on widescreen, there is a huge whitespace gap between the end of Construction and the next section, caused by placement of the hull image). Maralia 15:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that's a good idea as per above. ++Lar: t/c 17:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cross references

Note that there is significant discussion regarding the Columbus at User_talk:Lar/Archive_35#Christopher_Columbus_(whaleback) ([10]) and at User_talk:Parsecboy/Archive3#Christopher_Columbus_.28whaleback.29 ([11]), some of it is subsumed by subsequent edits but it may be of interest... ++Lar: t/c 16:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ref #2 needs replacing

Google and/or the publisher of the Worlds Columbian Exposition biblio reduced how much you can read of the text for free Instead of a page and a half you can now read about 5 lines. This means ref #2 doesn't work, and if it was pointed to where you now see 5 lines it no longer supports all the statements it formerly supported. A paper copy of the book could be used if it were located but to purchase it would be expensive, I think it prices out over 100 USD. I found a possible partial replacement... an ad in an 1898 literary magazine! [12] (Page 389 of "The Dial" ad is at lower left of the page) ++Lar: t/c 05:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Just cite it as a book rather than using {{cite web}}; you've already got the page number and everything. I wouldn't feel comfortable if your original source was some random site's reproduction of the book, but googlebooks is exacting. Maralia (talk) 05:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Except that the info is buried in the short descriptions of the OTHER books... you really have to see what that page said to see how it supports the assertions that footnote 2 is supporting, and I didn't take a snapshot of the page (nor could I post it here if I had, it's a copyvio to do that). This book is a bibliography. over 150 pages of cites of other texts, relating to the fair, organised by category. That's why it costs over 100 USD, it had to have taken a long time to compile. Maybe I worry too much. ++Lar: t/c 05:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
You needn't do all the work for the reader—providing a citation of the book, including the page number, should be sufficient to meet WP:V. You should probably reword the "longest" claim within the article, though; seeing as it's a claim made by (and sourced to) the Exposition, and the ship was built for the Exposition, it should be framed in that context. Maralia (talk) 06:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
It's repeated in the advert (Dial Magazine) I found which is a bit after the exposition. Given that she was built on Lake Superior, she had to fit through the Soo Locks to get to Chicago, which constrained total length that was possible unless she was built in sections (which she wasn't per the photos of her launch)... IIRC the longest lock at that time was 370 (I don't have a cite for that and I sort of doubt I'm remembering correctly)... if so she squeezed through (8 feet is not a lot :) ) It also would make it hard for some other ship to exceed the record (by much) until after the next larger lock was built. The Soo Locks article only has current lock sizes but the originals were 350 feet long per the US Army Corps of Engineers site linked from that article. Somehow I doubt they only increased by 20 feet in 38 years (1855 to 1893) ++Lar: t/c 23:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh don't get me wrong, I think it's probably true, but it's still very nearly self-cited. It might be more appropriate to say that she was "advertised as" the longest. Hell, perhaps we can find a better cite, and make it moot :) Maralia (talk) 05:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I like "advertised as" because it certainly was a promotional feature. ++Lar: t/c 18:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Just an FYI: I've put in an interlibrary loan request for the book McDougall's Dream; the American whaleback, which I saw mentioned at whaleback. No idea if I'll be able to get my hands on it, but if I do, hopefully it will have some meat in it. You might have a slightly better chance of finding it in your area. Maralia (talk) 06:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
COOL... If you get it, please let me know! It will come in handy not only here but also at whaleback and the other whaleback ships in Category:Whaleback_ships... depending on when I may need to drop everything and actually work on McDougall's long postponed article. As for an interlibrary loan, first I'd have to get a library card :) I'm out of town most weekdays so it's problematic. ++Lar: t/c 18:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Source questions

This section copied to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SS Christopher Columbus; to centralize discussion please post further comments there. Kablammo (talk) 18:28, 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.
  • fn 10. dead link, or are search instructions needed?

(I'll look at other sections later . . .)

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

Foregoing section copied to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SS Christopher Columbus; to centralize discussion please post further comments there. Kablammo (talk) 18:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

These concerns are now resolved. Kablammo (talk) 23:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Image placement needs attention as well, see WP:MOS#Images. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
This appears to be done now. Kablammo (talk) 18:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Library of Congress images

I added one Library of Congress image. Five more are available online You should add some of them using {{multiple image}} to save on space. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 14:47, 11 May 2008

An interesting new image. Unfortunately the LoC link doesn't work for me. I've had trouble before with reproducing the results of searches, the URLs seem to be transient. I'll try to puzzle out what the other 4 images are from that one, or perhaps you could give the search terms and I'll see if I I can find the rest and give explicit links to their provenance pages. Note that the images once brought over probably should be on Commons rather than en:wp... 10:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I think this link finds SOME of them anyway, and should last beyond a temporary link like yours. What were the categories the other ones were in? Looking at where the new image is, though, I think it belongs lower, rather than next to the White Livery image, it's from the Goodrich era... ++Lar: t/c 14:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes the image should be lower. I found the image and then several days later I found the fact for the text. (see the page hist). I had been looking up Rush Street and recall six images in the search I did, but only three or four of them were any good. You may have all of them. I seem to be unable to create the search I did. I did not notic it waas a temporary link at the time. I am sorry, but again, I think you found all the good ones.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)