Talk:SS Edmund Fitzgerald/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

FAC matters

I see that User:Fifelfoo didn't check how the citation issues s/he raised were addressed in almost two weeks, and User:Nikkimaria didn't re-visit the points raised in his/her Oppose for over two weeks. In this case, the rule is:

If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider.

--Rontombontom (talk) 19:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

You really need to keep posts like this on the FAC page where the activity can be determined by others; especially the admin who pass or fail articles. Brad (talk) 00:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

But just to tidy up one point here, Fifelfoo said that all of their concerns were fixed in a timely manner. They had not given a oppose/support, but it appears that they expected more reviewers to review it. North8000 (talk) 02:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

What next

I think that the operative statement is "Please re-work the prose and come back in a few weeks." I'm unable to tell whether have a just a few remaining prose problems, or an overall issue. I left a question at SandyGeorgia's talk pager regarding this. Just b4 PR I made a first (unsuccessful) attempt to get a prose expert to look at it. We might need to try harder at that. North8000 (talk) 10:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

You need to go over to Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests and place this article on the list. There are some very good copyeditors there and I've had very good results from them. It's important to have a copyeditor that has not seen or worked on this article before. A fresh set of eyes can see things you can't. Brad (talk) 11:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks we'll do that. North8000 (talk) 11:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I did it. North8000 (talk) 12:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Conversation referred to above is at User_talk:SandyGeorgia#State of prose on SS Edmund Fitzgerald article North8000 (talk) 11:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you the immense amount of expert prose and copy editing work

To Philg88 and Pol098, thank you so much for the immense amount of expert prose and copy editing work done on this article!! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I second that.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 12:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Double checking on reduction in lead

The 14:49 23 March edit substantially reduced the lead. At one time we received feedback that the lead was too short and needed to summarize the significant items from the article. I guess that the two large article sections that had summaries removed were the final voyage and wreck summary, and the brief summary that there were a lot of surveys, theories etc. Should we revisit/discuss this reduction? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't look too bad but I think it could be more interesting. How about adding something about how she went down without a single distress call? Did you notice that the copy edit review is completed?--Wpwatchdog (talk) 12:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to write short, buried in RW. Yes I did. Also that the first ce left in that content and the second took it out. The question is whether other article standards might require those two big areas be summarized in the lead. Also, I think that more on the sinking should be in the lead. I'd rather not have the intro/summary of studies, theories in the lead, but, it being such a huge part of the article, perhaps article WP stds. require it in the lead. Sorry to write short, buried in RW. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

In my view the sinking is a big part of the article - without it there wouldn't be much to write. That's why I left it in the lead on my copyedit. I think it should go back in to expand the lead and attain FA status for the article. ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 12:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks clear that we want the sinking summary back in the lead, not sure about the surveys/theories intro. I reverted the removal on both, so I put the most recent version (= as edited by Philg88) of both of them back in. What do y'all think? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I need to point out again that North Carolina-class battleship is a good example of an FA quality lead section. Use it as an example. The Fitz article is actually longer than North Carolina-class battleship so it should have at least the same amount of lead. Brad (talk) 10:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

So I think that that reinforces that the "expansion" to what the Fitz article is now is certainly needed, and raises a question of whether a further expansion of the lead is needed. North8000 (talk) 12:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I've taken out one sentence in the lead as it's too detailed, tending to "jar" the summary. As it stands, the article's lead is 339 words against the North Carolina-class battleship's 496. I reckon adding 150 words to the lead will do the trick. ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 21:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Brainstorming Lead Expansion

I guess one could say that there are many topics that are unrepresented in the lead, and one huge one (theories & surveys) is under-represented. Beginning of list of unrepresented items:

• Ownership, design, construction
• christening / launch
• fancier furnishings, and VIP treatment of passengers
• popularity, deejay captain etc.
• initial search/rescue effort
• report of loss
• subsequent changes to shipping practices
• memorials

Maybe we should pick 2-3 of these to add to the lead. North8000 (talk) 23:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Good idea - here are the three I would pick:

• Christening/launch - it was a disaster in itself! "Hooks" the reader - Jinxed ship?
• Popularity, deejay captain - human interest
• Subsequent changes to shipping practice - shows how important the disaster was

► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 23:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I like these picks. --Wpwatchdog (talk) 02:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. (north8000)

Editable workspace for new lead material

Everybody, please feel free to edit anything in this section.

Christening/launch - it was a disaster in itself! "Hooks" the reader - Jinxed ship?

Current main body text:

Northwestern named the boat after President and Chairman of the Board, Edmund Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald's grandfather had been a lake captain and his father owned the Milwaukee Drydock Company which built and repaired ships. More than 15,000 people attended the Fitzgerald's christening and launch ceremony on June 7, 1958. The event was plagued by misfortune. When Elizabeth Fitzgerald, wife of Edmund Fitzgerald, tried to christen the boat by smashing a champagne bottle over the bow, it took her three swings to break the bottle. A delay of 36 minutes followed while the shipyard crew struggled to release the keel blocks. Upon sideways launch, the boat crashed violently into a pier. On September 22, 1958, Fitzgerald completed nine days of Sea trials.

Suggested lead text:

The ship suffered a series of mishaps during her launch, including the champagne bottle used to christen her failing to smash on the first two attempts and a collision with a pier as she left the dockentered the water. (38 words)

► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 21:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks good, I think this is it. except the collision wasn't after leaving the dock. It basically went too far when it was launched (slid into the water sideways)North8000 (talk) 12:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll move it in. The main body text has an internal link on "christening and launch", but since this just says "launch", I'll tentatively leave the internal link in the main body.North8000 (talk) 21:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Done North8000 (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Popularity, deejay captain - human interest

Current main body text:

Because of her size, appearance, string of records, and "dee jay captain"., the Fitzgerald became a favorite of boat watchers throughout her career. Although Captain Peter Pulcer was in command of the Fitzgerald on trips when cargo records were set, he is best remembered for piping music day or night over the ship's intercom system while passing through the St. Clair and Detroit Rivers. While navigating the Soo Locks he would often come out of the pilot house and use a bullhorn to entertain tourists with a commentary on details about the Fitzgerald.

Workspace for / draft of new lead text:

Her size, record breaking performance, and "dee jay captain" made the Fitzgerald a favorite of boat watchers. Captain Peter Pulcer was known for piping music day or night over the ship's intercom system while passing through the St. Clair and Detroit Rivers, and, using a bull horn to entertain spectators at the Soo Locks with information about the Fitzgerald.revised: North8000 (talk) 14:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC) (erase my sig. later)

Subsequent changes to shipping practice - shows how important the disaster was

Current main body text:

The USCG investigation of the Fitzgerald sinking resulted in 15 recommendations regarding load lines, weathertight integrity, search and rescue capability, lifesaving equipment, crew training, loading manuals, and providing information to masters of Great Lakes vessels. NTSB's investigation resulted in 19 recommendations for the USCG, four recommendations for the American Bureau of Shipping, and two recommendations for the NOAA. Of the official recommendations, the following actions and USCG regulations were put in place:

1. In 1977, the USCG made it a requirement that all vessels of 1,600 gross register tons and over use depth finders.
2. Since 1980, survival suits have been required aboard ship in each crew member's quarters and at their customary work station with strobe lights affixed to life jackets and survival suits.
3. A LORAN-C positioning system for navigation on the Great Lakes was implemented in 1980 and later replaced with Global Positioning System (GPS) in the 1990s.
4. Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacons (EPIRB) are installed on all Great Lakes vessels for immediate and accurate location in event of a disaster.
5. Navigational charts for northeastern Lake Superior were improved for accuracy and greater detail.
6. NOAA revised its method for predicting wave heights.
7. The USCG rescinded the 1973 Load Line Regulation amendment that permitted reduced freeboard loadings.
8. The USCG began the annual pre-November inspection program recommended by the NTSB. "Coast Guard inspectors now board all U.S. ships during the fall to inspect hatch and vent closures and lifesaving equipment."

Working draft of new lead text:

Investigations of the sinking led to a range of changes in regulations and practices such as mandating survival suits, depth finders, positioning systems, increased freeboard requirements, and more frequent inspections. (24 words)

This will leave "freeboard" and "survival suits" double linked. Probably a good idea, (?) and, as I recall, OK with wp:mos because they are far apart. (?) North8000 (talk) 21:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. I'll be off WP for about 1 1/2 days, and then back but in a spotty way for the 4 days after that. North8000 (talk) 02:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

- - - - End of editable workspace - - - - - North8000 (talk) 10:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

A thought

I have a copy of a book that might be worth consulting for any additional content. Bohnak is the chief meteorologist at WLUC-TV6 in Negaunee, and he has been on staff at the station since 1988. He also holds an American Meteorological Society Seal of Approval since 1988. The book has about 8 pages about the Fitzgerald and the storm, including information on and from the Wilfred Sykes which was on Lake Superior at the same time. I can borrow a copy from the local library and scan the pages for someone if they are interested. (I won't scan mine and risk breaking the spine; my copy is autographed by the author.) Imzadi 1979 → 22:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Bohnak, Karl (2006). So Cold a Sky: Upper Michigan Weather Stories. Negaunee, MI: Cold Sky Publishing. pp. 311–8. ISBN 0-977-8189-0-X. OCLC 69415616.

My local library has a copy. I'll check it out tomorrow. Did you notice if Bohnak repeats the findings from the NOAA weather simulation study?--Wpwatchdog (talk) 22:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

It looks like he's using that as part of his treatment of the story, yes. I'm off to dinner here in a few, but I'll compare the article with the book and see what else varies between the two accounts. There's some discussion of the changes to shipping practices in the last paragraph of Bohnak's writing, and he includes interview material from Sykes's captain as well as crew from the Anderson. I'll post more comments later tonight though.Imzadi 1979 → 23:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I read Bohnak's account of the Fitzgerald storm. He has some original material from oral interviews that I haven't seen elsewhere. I do question the account that the band members at the Fitzgerald launch required hospitalization. I recall reading that the launch was so violent that it caused an onlooker to die on the scene from a heart attack but that claim doesn't seem to be out there anymore. I think some of this stuff falls in the urban myth category. None of the sources we used in the article talk about the launch causing deaths or hospitalizations. I will add a quote that Bohnak used from the Anderson crew member about ships dropping anchor in storms and another from the Marquette National Weather Service because they will add interest and they tie to other credible sources. Please don't hesitate to edit my additions for improvement. Thank you for the interesting source.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 00:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

References, redux

Ok, I scrubbed through some reference citation format issues. I have some comments below.

• If I can swing by the one library in the area that stocks it, I'll look up the volume, issue and page numbers for the Hour Detroit magazine reference. (The version consulted might be online, but if it was also in print, it just looks better to have full and complete details.)
• I'm going to suggest that where a newspaper has its publication location in the title that the location need not be repeated again. (This also goes for USA Today.) If the location would be ambiguous though, repetition is unavoidable. Some newspapers don't currently have redundant locations. (fn 113 doesn't give the location for the Orlando Sentinel.)

  Done, again. I deleted the redundant publication locations at one point but we've had other editors who wanted the location included. I left the locations for the Sault Ste. Marie twin cities because one is in Ontario and the other is in Michigan.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 17:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• Whoever has access to the articles from The Great Lakes Pilot, can you check them for publication dates? Only publication years are given, but since there are volume and issue numbers, I would assume that the newspaper/journal has more detailed dates that should be provided.
• The first Frederick Shannon reference from Michigan Natural Resources needs volume and issue number information. I found the ISSN for it. The Traverse magazine should have volume and issue numbers added as well.
• I think all of the references should have ISBNs or ISSNs now, except The Lightship, The Great Lakes Pilot and Diver Magazine. The remainder of the sources are either newspapers or web-only. Newspapers have ISSN numbers if we want to add them. (USA Today is ISSN 0734-7456 for instance. I found that in the infobox on the paper's article.)
  • I'd like to suggest adding OCLC numbers to the remaining sources that lack them if ISBNs/ISSNs can't be located. These can be located by searching http://www.worldcat.org for the source... and sometimes you get updated publication and authorship information. Like the publication location for The Lightship is Marysville, Michigan. (OCLC: 12318717)
• I found a better reference for the somewhat problematic AP story on the life ring: "Fitzgerald relic just a replica". Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Associated Press. August 21, 2007. p. 4A. Retrieved March 28, 2011.
• I found some better sources than the Canoe website. (You might want to leave the ship name unitalicized when dealing with the Lightfoot song and its cover versions.)
  • Stevenson, Jane (March 26, 2010). "Lightfoot changes 'Edmund Fitzgerald' lyric". Toronto Sun. QMI Agency. Retrieved March 28, 2011.
  • Quill, Greg (March 25, 2010). "Gordon Lightfoot changes 'Edmund Fitzgerald' lyrics". Toronto Star. Retrieved March 28, 2011.
  • Elliott, Larry (November 10, 2010). "Lightfoot changes lyrics to 'Edmund Fitzgerald'". Flint, Michigan: WJRT-TV. Retrieved March 28, 2011.
• I'm looking for higher-quality sources for the other music items. I deal with a Canadian editor who might be able to locate a Toronto newspaper article that reviewed The Dandy Warhols' cover of Gordon Lightfoot's song. The Great Lakes Myth Society might prove a little more difficult. Either way, the article runs a risk of this being an issue at the next FAC.
• The Aqua Explorers source doesn't pass muster as a reliable source, let alone a high-quality reliable source. I would drop it if the other footnote for that sentence covers the information.

  Done.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 16:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I think though that the article is in good shape. One suggestion from before that I'll repeat again is to move the dead-tree sources out of the footnotes and into the references section, even if they're only referenced once. Overall, I think it would give a neater, and more consistent appearance if all books are listed the same way. Otherwise, things look good. Imzadi 1979 → 13:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for locating better sources and helping us clean up the references. I'll keep working on your above suggestions.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 17:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, floydian (talk · contribs) pulled an article from the Toronto Star that lists the various acts that have recorded Gordon Lightfoot's music. I can forward it to anyone that would like to read it. It lists the Dandy Warhols, the Butthole Surfers, Siegfried Raunch and Rheostatics. It doesn't have the level of detail as expressed in the article here though, but it is a bit better of a source. Imzadi 1979 → 02:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

"They've Got Lightfoot Covered". Toronto Star. May 5, 2005. p. C5.

I completed the above suggested corrections and revisions. Please let us know if anything needs correction.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 15:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

FA submission

There are now 406 words in the lead which I guess means its ready for FA review. ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 03:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Before you consider renominating it though, ping the reviewers from the last FAC. Have them look at the article, and if they clear it, then you can ask the delegates for leave to renominate early. Otherwise, you still have a week to wait before you can renominate the article at FAC. Imzadi 1979 → 03:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 03:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Good idea, I'll do that. Was planning to do that anyway with the one "oppose" person, based on input from the FAC "closer". But either way I thought we'd go about 4-5 more days here. First to finish the lead expansion, and check for any loose ends that the expansion or CE might have created. Also I'll be mostly gone for 4-5 days so would be slow to respond here. North8000 (talk) 08:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking of these as some next steps.

1. We're made significant wording changes (I think only) in the lead. Request that Philg88 take a look at the wording in the lead.

   Request is done, and Philg88 re-reviewed and improved it. Thanks! North8000 (talk) 17:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

2. I'll give the two persons (reviewer and FAC person) who noted prose issues a heads up on prose and ask for any thoughts

   I asked the main prose reviewer. temporarily withdrew request

3. ask the folks that have been working on and discussing the other areas to say when they think we're ready in those other areas.

   So, everybody, are the other areas of work sort of done?

North8000 (talk) 14:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 15:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I still think the paragraphs and references on the music section need improvement.

Canadian rock band Rheostatics covered Lightfoot's song on their second album, Melville, and included it on their live album Double Live. The Dandy Warhols also covered the song during initial, rejected, recording sessions for their second album in 1996. These sessions were later released by the band as The Black Album in 2004.^{[233][234][235]}

The problem is the triple footnote at the end and a three-sentence paragraph. I would drop a lot of the extraneous detail and just add a sentence or two to the preceding paragraph listing the acts that have covered Lightfoot's song referenced to the Toronto Star reference. The names of the bands' albums and other stuff isn't really needed to understand the key point: Gordon Lightfoot's song and its impact. The impact of the song is further enhanced by the number of cover versions out there.

If that paragraph is left intact, the footnotes really need to be distributed to the three sentences, since I'm sure that each sentence is backed by a separate citation. The last two paragraphs could/should probably be combined together as well. Unless there's a better citation than last.fm, that middle paragraph on the Great Lakes Myth Society may need to be discarded.

As for the Commercialization, you have another triple-cited sentence there. There are two solutions I can offer: group the items listed by source and move the citation after the last of each group, or shorten the list and ditch the redundant citations. For the first method, you could say that "Memorabilia on sale include A, B, C,^[1] D, E, F, G,^[2] H, I, J and K.^[3]" (I don't know about you, but I think "memorablia" is a plural group noun and should have a plural verb for subject-verb agreement. I might be wrong.) For the second method, stick to about three to five items. Books is an obvious item to remove from the list given that this article's references include nine books with the ship's name in the title. T-shirts and sweatshirts can both be combined into a more generic "clothing".

Commercialzation section revision done.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 20:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

WPWatchdog, I'm think that maybe we should delete the second and third paragraph of what's in the tributes section, except keep whatever the Toronto Star covered (and the Toronto Star cite). If you agree, do you what was covered in the Toronto Star article? North8000 (talk) 02:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I was waiting to see your response to Imzadi's suggestion.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 11:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I made a wording error on the second half of my question....do you know which of the items in the 2nd/3rd paragraph were covered by the Toronto Star reference? North8000 (talk) 12:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Here is a link to the article: [1]. I didn't use this link in the reference because it is a forum. Imzadi was in contact with someone about the article as it appeared in the Toronto Star.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 12:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

That list there is accurate. I have a copy of the article here that was e-mailed to me that I can forward on to anyone else. Just use the e-mail function from my user page and I'll reply with the article. Imzadi 1979 → 13:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Imzadi1979, thanks I'll do that. North8000 (talk) 13:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I finished the "big" changes on the tributes section, but I think that an additional look is needed. That list includes VERY prominent people, yet we only list some less prominent examples. This comes from the history of this section in the article. Also, my work needs ce and prose checking. North8000 (talk) 14:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

As for the rest of the article, I'm running through to make sure that all of the non-breaking spaces are in place as needed. So far, everything else looks good. Imzadi 1979 → 18:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Now is a good time to let the article "mellow" for a week or two. If you stay away from the article for a few weeks (except to revert vandalism or the like) and go back over it after that, you will find things that escaped your view previously. This is my tried and true experience and I'm currently letting USS Chesapeake go through its mellowing period before FAC. Brad (talk) 18:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking that we'd be resubmitting in 1-2 weeks, sounds like 2 weeks would be better. Based on that I told the FAC reviewer with prose concerns that we consider the prose to be done (and asked them to take a look), and that I don't think that the open suggestions above involve prose, hopefully we can consider the prose work to be completed. Maybe one week to make whatever changes in response to Imzadi1979's suggestions, and then another week to let it set and recheck, making only little corrections? North8000 (talk) 18:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

In re-reading the article, I'm detecting a few things that might need to be changed. There is repeated reuse of full organization names, complete with abbreviations in parentheses, when the full names have been given already. It looks like NOAA, for example, is spelled out on first use in each major section. That's probably overkill, especially when some of the abbreviated names are known well enough on their own. The other thing that needs to be examined is the repeated construction "author <surname>". In some cases, full names are never given, nor are any credentials of the author. In other cases, the construction has been changed to "<other adjective> <surname>". I would ditch the "author" construction and introduce full names, complete with some credentials. For example, "Author Bohnak wrote that Joe Warren..." could be split into two sentences. "Karl Bohnak, a Upper Peninsula meteorologist, covered the sinking and storm in a book on local weather history. In this book, Joe Warren, a deckhand on the Anderson during the November 10, 1975 storm, said ...". Otherwise some of these author names lose any significance. Imzadi 1979 → 19:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Organization abbreviations and author constructs revised for consistency. Thank you for your expert eye.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 20:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

FA Submission (continued)

Thank you to Imzadi for sending me the Toronto Star article. Based on it I just tweaked my recent work in the tributes section (scaled back one sentence). I think that this completes the last known open item. (?)

How's this for a plan:

1. If anybody has suggestions for changes that will affect wording (=potentially affecting prose), let us know by tomorrow. If there are none:
2. Tomorrow ask the reviewer who had prose concerns to take a peek at it.
3. Just after that, give the other main previous reviewers and FAC delegate a heads up
4. Let this sit for a week. Look for small corrections/ tweaks to make, but no more big changes.
5. After that week, if no new issues, resubmit for FAC

What do y'all think? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The article looks pretty good. I can't really find any issues with any of the sources. (Ok, it would be nice to replace the press release from the Sault Symphony Orchestra with a secondary source. There are two articles that come up on a news.google.com search.) Since the two-week waiting period has elapsed, no one would need to ask the FAC director or delegates for leave to renominate the article. I would ask the reviewers from the last FAC to comment here before renomination. Otherwise, the article can go back to FAC at any time. Imzadi 1979 → 22:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The delegate suggested that we ping the reviewer who had the prose concerns before renominating. Maybe just do that. North8000 (talk) 00:05, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I did that. North8000 (talk) 12:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Update: Please see: [[2]] North8000 (talk) 01:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Numbers

I'm only commenting here based on the direction of another editor from this edit, but as it is done currently, that usage is wrong. If it remains spelled out (seventeen) then the non-breaking space (&nbsp;) needs to be removed. If it is reverted back to numeral form, the non-breaking needs to remain to prevent the number and its unit from being separated by a line break. Most publications with which I've worked use the under ten/over ten rule unless it would force a sentence to start with a numeral (and even then, they'd rewrite a sentence to avoid that possibility.) Imzadi 1979 → 02:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your input, the reason I spelled it out was because I think it scans better. WP:ORDINAL only says numbers above ten should be in figures as "a general rule". Best, ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 02:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Some prose commentary

Per a request on my talk page, I'm posting some comments on prose and related issues as a precursor to FAC.

• Per WP:LEAD, leads should be 4 paragraphs or fewer. 5 might be acceptable in exceptional cases, but 6 is too much
• "The ship suffered a series of mishaps during her launch, including the champagne bottle used to christen her failing to smash on the first two attempts and a collision with a pier as she entered the water" - can this sentence be recast so the first comma is a colon? You'll have to rework the second part a bit, but it might flow better
• "One time captain Captain Peter Pulcer was known for piping music day or night over the ship's intercom system while passing through the St. Clair and Detroit Rivers" - grammar and phrasing
• "to iron works including those in Detroit and Toledo" - the phrasing used in main body text is much smoother
• "At the Soo locks he would use a bull horn to entertain spectators with a running commentary about the Fitzgerald." vs "While navigating the Soo Locks he would often come out of the pilot house and use a bullhorn to entertain tourists with a commentary on details about the Fitzgerald." - minor inconsistencies in spelling and MoS details, check for others. Also, "on details" is not needed
• "Subsequent investigations of the sinking led to a range of changes in regulations and practices such as mandating survival suits, depth finders, positioning systems, increased freeboard, as well as more frequent inspections for such vessels." - phrasing

This just covers the lead - I would suggest reading through the article to see what else you can fix before heading back to FAC. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks like we will need to modify or undo some recent changes. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

We lengthened the lead in response to feedback that it was too short. Didn't realize that there was a 4 paragraph guideline. I'll start by combining the existing material into 4 paragraphs. Then review whether the length is right; if not we can take material out. North8000 (talk) 13:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Combined the 6 paragraphs to 4. Two were short anyway. North8000 (talk) 13:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Checklist for specific feedback items by Nikkimaria

See above for full text on these.

1. Per WP:LEAD, leads should be 4 paragraphs or fewer....

   Done. North8000 (talk) 14:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

2. "The ship suffered a series of mishaps........

   Revised.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 14:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

3. "One time captain Captain Peter Pulcer was known......

   Done North8000 (talk) 13:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

4. "to iron works including those in Detroit and Toledo" - the phrasing used in main body text is much smoother

   Done. I think this undoes a change we made in response to feedback to make the sentences different. North8000 (talk) 13:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

5. "At the Soo locks he would use a bull horn.....

   Done North8000 (talk) 13:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

6. "Subsequent investigations of the sinking led......

   Revised.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 14:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

7. Reading through / checking the rest of the article to see what else we can fix

   Done. I did it; others please free to do the same. North8000 (talk) 11:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

8. (from Nikkimaria talk page) Check out WP:LEAD and WP:Checklist

   I read those and tried to apply them in my pass through the article. North8000 (talk) 11:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

North8000 (talk) 13:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

FAC Nomination

If there are no objections, I plan to re-nominate it this weekend. North8000 (talk) 17:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

It wouldn't hurt to ask the copyedit guild to look over the article one more time. Brad (talk) 19:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Could be. I was kind of on the fence on that. The up side is an extra last look at our main problem area. But maybe Philg88 has been watching over us? Also we might be getting to the point of going in circles. Some of the feedback is starting to undo changes made in response to feedback. Also I'm going stir-crazy  :-) If we did, should we impose upon Philg88 or go back to the guild? Either way, I'm thinking it should be a light careful touch at this stage. I wrote back to Nikkimaria and SandyGeorge that we plan to resubmit soon. Is a further delay at this point (while the previous review of all of the other items is still "fresh") a minus? I'm just kind of incoherently rambling, not sure what to think. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that the time to discuss whether there are further discussions needed is over. Just nominate the article already and let the chips fall as they may. A new nomination will attract a different mix of reviewers and commentary, and you'll find that person A will have like something that person B does not. Since a new nomination is treated de novo, don't worry too much about the last nomination's comments in dealing with a new nomination unless an editor shows up to restate them. (BTW, Sandy is very busy and the only active delegate reviewing nominations at FAC for closure. She doesn't need to be kept apprised of the status of future nominations when there are 51 articles at FAC, the oldest nomination dating back to February 11.) Imzadi 1979 → 22:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I am watching :). I will give it the once over now but with kid gloves. ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 23:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've done some polishing but I'm getting too close to the article now. I think its ready for renomination. ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 00:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, here goes! Want to do it well, might take a day. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I did it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The FAC page is here: [[3]] North8000 (talk) 11:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 15:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Suggest we avoid big changes during FAC review

Substantial changes inevitably create some issues/loose ends which take some time to resolve. I think that we should not make big changes during FAC review, except if needed to respond to the review. The paragraph addition which I reverted sort of brought this up in my mind. It was uncited, much less getting to the issue of how solid and perfect the references/cites need to be for FAC. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 21:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree as well, but not everyone will know that this article is at FAC, and so you can't expect others to abide by the decision. Imzadi 1979 → 21:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Good point. But I think it's helpful to explain / be together on this to either avoid or clarify it, including to quickly/amicably resolve these so that it does not become "unstable" in that area. North8000 (talk) 21:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Items during FAC review

WPWatchdog, do your recent changes finish off the open items in Brianboultonn notes at the FAC review? If so would could mark it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I still need page numbers for two newspaper articles that I hope to get in the next 24 hours.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 02:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, and sorry for being the peanut gallery while you do the work! :-) North8000 (talk) 03:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Done! North8000, it wasn't really much work. I just had to track down the page numbers through various libraries. You did 100% of the work of making sure the article continued through the review process. Thank you.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 15:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Image issue

Someone needs to clarify the copyright license tag on File:Fitz Pilot House.jpg. The license being claimed says (with the points broken out):

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was:

• first published outside the United States (and not published in the U.S. within 30 days)
• and it was first published before 1978 without complying with U.S. copyright formalities or after 1978 without copyright notice
• and it was in the public domain in its home country (Canada) on the URAA date (URAA date).

The problem is that while it was created on July 3, 1994, which means it was created before the URAA date (January 1, 1995), creation and publication are not the same in US copyright law. Additionally, just because the file is "released by Ontario Ministry of Culture with Freedom of Information request", that does not mean it is public domain in Canada. Canada has Crown copyright, so works of their federal government are not public domain like works of the US government, and state or provincial works are not PD unless specifically released.

Basically, here's the problem: we need a source where it was published (FOIA or equivalent requests are not publications), and we need to know that it was PD in Canada before the URAA date. The alternative is that we need an e-mail from the Ontario Ministry of Culture that states that the image is in, or has been released into, the public domain in both the US and Canada. Of course that also assumes that they own the rights to the video and that Joseph MacInnis doesn't retain those rights. If rights-holder released the video into the public domain in Canada alone before January 1, 1995, it is automatically in the public domain in the US. If it was released at a later date, then we need a statement that the video has been also explicitly released into the public domain in the US, or else an American copyright still attaches to the work. Either way, if it's not PD in both countries, it has to be released under a valid license (Creative Commons, GFDL, etc) to be hosted on Commons. The permission to use the file has to be e-mailed to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, and the image needs to be marked with an {{OTRS pending}}.

If we don't have such a kind of direct permission to use the image, it has to be deleted off Commons and uploaded to the English Wikipedia if a claim of fair use is going to be made. I don't think we could make a convincing argument under criterion 8 of non-free content criteria: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."

Sorry to be long-winded, but either the license needs to be fixed, or the photo needs to be removed. All of the other images are fine because they are US federal government works, Wikipedian-generated or otherwise come from acceptable sources. The image reviewer from the last FAC didn't catch the date and source issue, and now our current FAC reviewers are going to rely on that mistaken approval this time around. Imzadi 1979 → 10:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to take it out of the article until this is resolved. North8000 (talk) 11:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I took it out due to questions raised above. I took it out just because it has questions, not based on any review of the situation. Would go back in only if resolved. For reference, the removed code is

Image:Fitz Pilot House.jpg|thumb|left|alt=Fitzgerald pilot house wreck image |Image of Fitzgerald pilot house from 1994 MacInnis dive

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I marked the image OTRS pending and requested permission from the Ontario Ministry of Culture to use the image. Do we need to add another image?--Wpwatchdog (talk) 13:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that the article can always use a few more images, and more diverse images. Probably, regarding appearance, doubly so where that one was. I think that the real question is whether we should put another now, during FAC. Not sure, but my opinion leans towards not. North8000 (talk) 15:37, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't panic...

Over the {{inuse}} template that will appear in a moment. After discussion with North and wpwatchdog, I'll be applying the {{harv}} and {{sfn}} family of templates, and would greatly appreciate if edit conflicts could be avoided while I'm working on it. Circéus (talk) 20:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. This was discussed wp's talk page and mine. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll see about a thorough sweep of the references section (i.e. rm unnecessary parameters and that odd separation into types of references, which is rather unusual), but for now I gotta figure out what's wrong with {{Cite canlaw}}. Circéus (talk) 00:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Passed to FA

Hard work and patience pays off. Well done everyone! Brad (talk) 14:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Hooray! It passed thanks to all the editors who helped along the way.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 15:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

TIME TO CELEBRATE! What a cool and pleasant adventure this has been! I'd try to thank the zillion people individually that have helped along the way but then I'd be certain to miss someone. WPWatchdog, what an immense amount of excellent work you have done on this, and what a pleasure it is to work with you! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Is it possible to convince you two to start working on RMS Titanic since the 100th Anniversary of its sinking will be 15 April 2012? I'm taking a long-shot here :) Brad (talk) 22:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Feels like I just run a marathon. We still are going to try for article of the day for November 10th.

I think that I'm only up for 80% of the intensity I had on this one, but I'd be willing to help. Not sure what the situation is over there. (?) North8000 (talk) 23:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I will start reading up on RMS Titanic. I trust there will be some cool heads to help navigate controversy.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 12:00, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

A quick scan of the RMS Titanic article indicates that it could do with a copyedit but I'll let you guys work your magic on it first :) ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 00:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Titanic needs a flamethrower; not a copyedit. Brad (talk) 02:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I asked over there about what people thought about this and there were no comments. I might do a few things over there, but the party doesn't really begin until WP gets there.  :-) North8000 (talk) 11:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I guess we start with the points that caused the article's demotion. I will be gone for about 2 weeks. I'll start work on it when I get back.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 00:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Have a nice trip. Hopefully a well-deserved vacation. North8000 (talk) 00:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Featured article of the day?

I read the material at the article/place where this is handled, but still have not yet figured out the dynamics of how this actually works. It looks like they do not take long term requests nor have a long term "line". Looks like you just request inclusion or dates that are just a few weeks out. Is anybody familiar with how this works? Sincerely North8000 (talk) 12:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the request process is needlessly complicated but in the end you're correct. A few weeks before 10 November (I assume) would be the time to request. The point system is really only needed if there happens to be two articles competing for the same date. On the talk page there is a long term "upcoming requests" template but even this article is outside of longterm parameters at present. Until then just relax; there isn't anything else to be done. Brad (talk) 13:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I suppose that we could consider trying for it now. But November 10th is cooler, and I think that we get an extra "point" for being an anniversary date. I could go either way. What do you think WPWatchdog? North8000 (talk) 16:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The page statistics show a big spike on November 10 every year. As you know, Lightfoot's ballad is always on the radio in the Great Lakes region around that time. I prefer to wait for November 10 as the article will get the most views that way. If it doesn't make it on that date, then we can still try for another date.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 18:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Cool. Sounds like a plan. North8000 (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Newspaper refs

I just repaired some date formatting in the newspaper references. But there are several that are missing the author name and retrieved on dates. Please try and fix these up. Brad (talk) 08:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that those newspaper articles were listed with staff authors and another editor specializing in citations changed it as it appears now.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 12:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

This edit removed a bunch of formatting stuff, that I'm adding back and updating. I won't fix the author stuff because the new footnotes are set up not to use staff authors. P.S. We should consider consolidating the subsections of the references into one. I've never seen any scholarly work divide references by type. Imzadi 1979 → 13:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Combined references draft

This is what the references section looks like put in alphabetical order as one section. The reason I prefer this over that is there is that if the article is printed, all of the fancy interlinking between the notes and the references are gone. Any reader of a paper copy of the article will be searching, trying to figure out if Bohnak wrote a book, an essay, a journal article, a newspaper article or an "online source". Second, you have items like the article published by WEWS-TV in the "online sources" subsection, when it's just as much of a news article as something printed in a newspaper or magazine/journal. Third, I don't think any of the items in that subsection qualify as "essays" when they're all magazine/journal articles. The only thing that should be changed if we do this is how the footnotes are indicated. Circeus used the publication name where a specific non-corporate author was not indicated (staff writers). The footnote should be changed to reference a shortened version of the title, since that's what appears first in the entry. So: "# "Detroit church" 2006" not "# USA Today 2006", etc. Imzadi 1979 → 14:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

WP knows the reference formatting and plan far better than I. As I understand it, the proposed change basically just eliminates the groupings in the references section?

BTW, starting about 6 hours from now, I will be "off the grid" for a week (no internet access). Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it just alphabetizes everything together into one list based on (first) author last name or the first word of the title. Imzadi 1979 → 15:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm cool with that if it's OK with WPwatchdog. North8000 (talk) 17:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm cool with it too. Thank you for cleaning it up.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 21:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Much more FA worthy. Thanks for that. Brad (talk) 10:44, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Implemented. Imzadi 1979 → 12:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Large unsourced addition

This edit from an anonymous editor added the following unsourced paragraph to the article:

It was discovered in Oct of 2001, that the Cargo hold theory was on the right track. After a coast guard chopper witnessed the sinking of another ship carrying a load of gypsum, much like the load of the Edmund Fitzgerald, the wreck was reevaluated. The Fitzgerald's load was taconite, a type of iron ore that absorbs water quickly and in large amounts. The locks on the hatches were found to be intact, indicating that they were not locked at the time of the sinking. As the storm caused waves to crash over the deck of the ship, water leaked into the cargo hold where it was absorbed by the taconite, which in turn became very heavy very quickly. This caused the ship to sit lower and lower in the water, until a rogue wave overcame her and she flipped. As the boat sank, the taconite came out of the hold thru the unlocked hatches, making the ship light again, and it actually attempted to right itself, but while doing so it hit the bottom of the ocean and split in two, with one sidethe bow coming to rest face up, while the stern landed face down. Although there still would have been no survivors, had the ship righted itself completely, the searchers would probably have found at least the wreckage of the ship when they conducted the initial search.

I've preserved it here just in case it was a worthwhile addition that can be sourced somehow and restored to the article. Imzadi 1979 → 22:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I've never happened across this October 2001 "discovery". I agree that it doesn't belong in the article unless the contributor can give us a credible source.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 23:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. This has lots of problems. North8000 (talk) 04:29, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

"it hit the bottom of the ocean" What a priceless statement. Brad (talk) 05:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the moral here is to not send your children to the University of Cincinnati. A quick trace of the IP editor-http://toolserver.org/~chm/whois.php?ip=129.137.16.232--Asher196 (talk) 12:21, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

My guess is that they saw or read something and then tried to write from memory, mixing it up, adding errors and embellishing it in the process. North8000 (talk) 13:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Launch date?

Many sources I have say launched on June 7th, not June 8th, of 1958. Can any one cite a source for June 8th? or is this an error?174.53.235.176 (talk) 04:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Different sources give different dates:

The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald by Frederick Stonehouse (2005 ed.), p. 9 - launch date June 8.

Queen of the Lakes by Mark Thompson (2005 ), p.164 - launch date June 7

The Mighty Fitz by Michael Schumacker (2005), p. 15 - launch date June 7

Fitzgerald's Storm: The Wreck of the Fitzgerald by Joseph MacInnis (1998), p. 22 - launch date June 7

29 Missing by Andrew Kantar (1998), p. 5 - launch date June 8

Since 3 out of the above 5 give June 7 as the launch, I'd change it to June 7 unless someone comes up with a definitive source.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 12:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Wolff citation

Just to clarify, I updated the information on the book from [4]. I removed the original year, because the "2nd expanded edition" was originally published in 1990, not 1979. If the 1979 edition was actually used for the article, then the page numbers and citation need to be updated to reflect that fact. Imzadi 1979 → 22:18, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The pages are all cited from the 1990 book, at least from my comparison of the article with those pages. 24.177.99.126 (talk) 22:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

IMHO I would argue that the older edition is the correct edition if it is the one that the article and it's page numbers used. IMHO I don't think that we should make a change that introduces errors that somebody else has to fix. We should get WPWatchdog to give us their thoughts on this. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The 1979 book is only 166 pages. The page numbers used in the article start at page 217. They correlate with the pages in the 1990 book. 24.177.99.126 (talk) 12:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I think I misspoke. I really meant avoiding changing an edition if such a change invalidates the page numbers. And I'm not sure if this is the case. North8000 (talk) 02:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

In this case, the page numbers that were cited before have to be from the 1990 "2nd expanded edition" because the first edition from 1979 doesn't have enough pages to contain the cited page numbers. Imzadi 1979 → 02:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Let me be clear also. While I do not own the 1979 book, the table of contents for that 1979 book, an image of which is available online, shows the bibliography starts at page 163. The 1979 book is listed at 166 pages. To repeat: the page numbers used in the article start at 217. They run through 229. They cannot be from the 1979 book.

I own the 1990 book. The pages from the 1990 book dealing with the vessel are 217–229. I have checked the specific cited page numbers in the article against the specific pages of the 1990 book. They conform. 24.177.99.126 (talk) 12:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that this all says that we're cool on the only thing that I was concerned about. That right now the page numbers are good for the quoted source. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.nytimes.com/keyword/edmund-fitzgerald. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Brad (talk) 18:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Goal: Featured article of the day for November 10th, 2011

Getting this as Featured article of the day for November 10th, 2011 (anniversary of her sinking) has been our goal since long before we started working on Good Article status back in 2010.

I didn't realize that there was a secondary "request the date" list for 30-90 days before the date. Thanks to somebody who did and put us on there. I upgraded the "estimated points" to 7. The main request page is for requests <= 30 days before the requested date. I will be gone and off the grid (where cell phones don't even reach) October 11th - 20th inclusive. I plan to put up a request and rationale up on October 10th which is 31 days. But then I will not be able to watch it or respond to any questions, etc. and so it would be great if folks could watch it. Including WPWatchdog as a main editor. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't able to find the 30 - 90 day nomination list. I assume there will be a notice on this talk page about the nomination. I'll help keep watch. Thank you, North8000 for keeping our goal on track.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 15:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm starting to list the pages here:

• The main request/nomination page is at Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/requests
• The 30-90 day list is at Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/requests/pending

North8000 (talk) 16:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the estimated points are a bit high. Looking over how WP:TFA/R assigns points

• There are no points for age (this wasn't promoted more than a year before the proposed date)
• Only 1 point for the date. It's the 36th anniversary this year, and additional points are only possible when the anniversary is a multiple of 10-, 25- , 50- or 100-year increments.
• The article isn't "widely covered" since it isn't in 20 or more other editions of Wikipedia. (I count only nine other languages, including Simple English.)
• It's not a vital article nor a core topic, so no extra points there.
• Depending on who makes the official request, if they haven't had a TFA before and they're a significant contributor, that's an additional point.
• The subject area isn't under represented so no point there.
• The last ship article to be a TFA was September 23, so no point there for a similar article within 3 months. (Sorry, but they don't parse things as fine as ship vs. shipwreck so the ARA Moreno will count.)

That's 2 points, not 7, and possibly only 1 depending on who nominates it. Since it's less than 5 points, the article can be listed at WP:TFA/R anytime within 30 days of the anniversary. (It if was 7 points, it couldn't be listed until 20 days before the anniversary because over-5-point nominations are rarely replaced and they'd tie up a slot on the page for that extra time period.) Remember that the Wikipedia servers run on UTC, so if you list the article on the page after 8 pm EDT on October 10, you're actually nominating on October 11.

One thing to remember, you need need to have a "blurb" for the article when you nominate it. It should not be a copy/paste of the lead because the blurb actually has to be shorter than what most FAs have for a lead section. You might want to start working on that here on the talk page now so that it is ready for the nomination. Imzadi 1979 → 16:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, doubly so for the note on the blurb.

Couple of notes on the rating. Maybe it's just personal opinion, but I really do think of it as primarily a shipwreck article rather than a ship article. That is the source of it's interest and prominence, and where it sits in the minds of the potential readers, and that's what the majority of the content is about. For example, IMHO folks who just read a ship article would consider this something new / different to read. I think that could possibly weigh in on 3 months and underrepresented.

Also I plan to nominate and I'm one of the 2 "main" editors, (I think #2, with WPWatchdog being #1) although I don't like that term given the immense help and work that we have received from many, many editors. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The only "underrepresented" categories are: "Awards, decorations and vexillology; Business, economics and finance; Chemistry and mineralogy; Computing; Education; Engineering and technology; Food and drink; Geology and geophysics; Health and medicine; Language and linguistics; Law; Mathematics; Philosophy and psychology", and this article doesn't qualify on that point. As for ship vs. shipwreck, they don't make that distinction at TFA/R. This article is under the "Transport" heading, but for similarity sake, it's ships, planes, trains, roads, bridges, etc that they'd look at. Sorry, but the best advice I can give is to go in claiming fewer points and have a regular there bump your assessment than the other way around. I can't see you making a successful case for a difference between a ship and a shipwreck. Imzadi 1979 → 18:44, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not very knowledgeable on the specifics there, I was just giving my thoughts. Thanks for the info. North8000 (talk) 19:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

All of the specifics are at WP:TFA/R, including the instructions on how to compute the points and how to set up the blurb. 19:30, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Workspace for featured-article-of-the-day blurb

I'll start with just a copy of the lead. Everybody please feel free to edit.

- - - - beginning of editable workspace - - - - - -

The Edmund Fitzgerald in 1975

The SS Edmund Fitzgerald was a 729-foot (222 m) Great Lakes freighter that made headlines after sinking in a Lake Superior massive storm with near hurricane-force winds and 35-foot (11 m) waves on November 10, 1975. The Fitzgerald suddenly sank approximately 17 miles (27 km) from the entrance to Whitefish Bay, at a depth of 530 feet (160 m). Her crew of 29 perished without sending any distress signals, and no bodies were recovered; she is the largest boat to have sunk in the Great Lakes. The Fitzgerald carried taconite from mines near Duluth, Minnesota, to iron works in Detroit, Toledo and other ports. Her size, record-breaking performance, and "dee jay captain" endeared the Fitzgerald to boat watchers. Many theories, books, studies and expeditions have examined the cause of the sinking. Her sinking is one of the most well-known disasters in the history of Great Lakes shipping and is the subject of Gordon Lightfoot's 1976 hit song, "The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald". (more...)

- - - - end of editable workspace - - - - - -

North8000 (talk) 19:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I deleted and moved text around. Please revert if it is not acceptable.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 21:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the huge storm and 35 ft waves is good stuff for the blurb. I'm taking a break. Have at it! North8000 (talk) 21:50, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Deleted repetitive sentences.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 23:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Adding an image... total length, including markup, should be 1200 characters and in one paragraph. Imzadi 1979 → 19:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Does "markup" include ALL of the characters and spaces visible in edit mod? Thanks. North8000 (talk) 19:42, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

basically, I'd say everything from the "<div" at the start of the blurb to the "...''']])" at the end. Imzadi 1979 → 19:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. So right now we're at about 2,300 including spaces, 2000 not counting spaces. More reduction is needed. North8000 (talk) 20:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Now 2,200 / 1,900 North8000 (talk) 21:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Now 1,700 / 1,400 North8000 (talk) 21:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Now 1200/1000 visible, 1560/1340 total.North8000 (talk) 01:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Now 958/802 visible, 1276/1099 total. I think we're there. North8000 (talk) 01:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I put in conversions... remember, we can't alienate the non-Americans by refusing to include the metric and using ' as an abbreviation for "foot" isn't very accessible either. Imzadi 1979 → 02:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Cool. I was originally thinking of those conversions as a lot of (hidden) characters but I'm guessing that it's more a matter of having to fit in the box (visible characters). If not, maybe should do the conversions manually in test? North8000 (talk) 10:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC) North8000 (talk) 10:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I dont' know that it matters which way it is done, so long as it is done. I think we're good on size now. Imzadi 1979 → 19:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I nominated it

I nominated it one day early because starting in a few hours I will be off Wikipedia (and going where even cell phone doesn't reach, (passing the Fitz's last port tomorrow) for 10 days. Could y'all keep an eye on it? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Looks like it was moved to the talk page there. I'm new at that process. Can folks try to keep an eye on it while I'm gone. ?

They only allow five date-specific requests at a time, and unless you have enough points to bump an article off the list, there needs to be a vacancy. I'm sure someone will move it in due course back to the main page though. Imzadi 1979 → 23:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! North8000 (talk) 00:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I put it back in when a spot opened up and it got bumped again. I'm new at this. It looks like support feedback is expected even when it is still on the talk page at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests#November 10th WP:TFA/R#November 10 so interested folks should comment there. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I had to bump it when I nominated M-6 (Michigan highway), because under the points system, a 10th anniversary "beats" a 36th anniversary. Now that they finally scheduled Statue of Liberty (which had 7 points), that freed up spots to restore the request. Anyone interested should comment at WP:TFA/R#November 10, not the talk page though. Imzadi 1979 → 23:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Yes, interested persons should please comment at WP:TFA/R#November 10. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:07, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

If interested in giving input at WP:TFA/R#November 10, I think it will be closing soon. North8000 (talk) 00:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

It's going in November 10th. Yes!!!!!!!!!!! North8000 (talk) 16:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)