Talk:SS Edmund Fitzgerald/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Racepacket (talk) 23:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

This is a nice piece of work, but I am placing it on hold so that you can address a few concerns.

No disamb links or broken external links.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   reword, "When the storm became intense, the Soo Locks at Sault Ste. Marie were closed" Do you mean "The Soo Locks at Sault Ste. Marie were closed, follow normal procedures for intense storms."

   reword "At 8:32 p.m., Cooper all but pleaded with the U. S. Coast Guard to take him seriously that the Fitzgerald had gone missing."

   "They asked the big commercial vessels to voluntarily join the search. " - when? At what time?

   "A commissioner was assigned to take testimony for claims and recommend apportionments for Bradley surviving families based on average earnings, length of service, life expectancy, and family status" might be better stated as "In the Bradley case, the admiralty court appointed a commissioner to take testimony for claims and to recommend apportionments for surviving families based on average enarings, length of service, life expectancy, and family status."

   "probable cause and on the condition of “gag orders”." should read "probable cause and imposed confidentiality agreements"

   "A second survey took place from November 22 through November 25 by a private contractor, Seaward, Inc." might be "The Navy also contracted with Seaward, Inc. to conduct a second survey from November 22 through November 25."

   "The Michigan Sea Grant Program oversaw a three-day dive" do you mean "The Michigan Sea Grant Program funded a three-day dive"?

   "was challenged by Shannon's 1994 excellent quality of detailed photography of the Fitzgerald's overturned stern that showed" change to "high resolution photography"

   "A hand lead was the only method it had to take depth soundings." No anticedent for it - you mean the Fitzgerald.

   "The Fitzgerald had no monitoring system to monitor the presence or amount of water " -> "The Fitzgerald had no system to monitor the presence or amount of water" (note: Fitzgerald should be consistently italicized.)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   "He told the attorneys that the Fitzgerald foundering was caused by negligence." - need cite

   "dropped the last Woodrush life ring down to the wreck." -need cite

   fn 8, http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=3503760 -dead

   fn 6, http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/13/fitzgerald.anniversary.ap/index.html -dead

   boatnerd.com probably should be replaced with Cleveland Plain Dealer

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Article states that wreck is in Canadian waters. Could you indicate how far it is from the international border?

   What there any official finding as to whether the rescue operation was sufficient or whether the weather forecasts were sufficient?

   Could article be expanded regarding to the aftermath of the crash in terms of better safety procedures, rescue preparations, crew training, captain certification?

   Has anyone done a modern computer analysis or simulation of the ship's structure to test the various theories? Perhaps there is published schloarly literature on the topic.

   Explain why the US admiralty law applied eventhough the wreck ultimately was found in Canada. (The trip started in the US, and the wreck was not discovered until later...)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   File:Fitz Pilot House.jpg is dated 1994, but uses a pre-1978 rationale. So need to retag the photo with an applicable rationale.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I am placing the article on hold. I reserve final judgment for a second read. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 00:29, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. We'll go to work. Sincerely, North8000 03:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations. Good luck getting to FA. Racepacket (talk) 02:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Earlier observation

Reviewer: 1Matt20 16:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC) I support having the Edmund Fitzgerald article become a good article. There has been much work done on it. A teeny bit of issues with referencing is all that seems wrong with it (see here) For over seven years now an extensive amount of work has been done on the article. From this to this. Now I don't know if a lot of good work counts towards becoming a good article, but the quality and accuracy of SS Edmund Fitzgerald over all seems to be worthy of meeting Good article criteria. As I said earlier the referencing on some paragraphs should probably be improved, but this is not a big issue and should not affect awarding SS Edmund Fitzgerald the title of "Good article". 1Matt20 16:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both. We both would like to think it was GA level "as is" but appreciate and want a thorough review. We plan to try for FA and then for Articl eof the day for November 10th, the day she sank. North8000 (talk) 17:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Revisions

1. It is reasonably well written: see article revisions made 12/24/10.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable:

• "He told the attorneys that the Fitzgerald foundering was caused by negligence." Citation added.
• "dropped the last Woodrush life ring down to the wreck." Not able to locate a citation. Delete?
• Dead links: fn 6, http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/13/fitzgerald.anniversary.ap/index.html - couldn't figure out where this dead link is in the article.

I don't know why it showed up on the dead link utility report. The mystery links are no longer on the report. Racepacket (talk) 05:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

-Will continue to work on recommended revisions.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 23:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments after second read on 12/26

• good work on the improvements
• "legal precedence from court decisions" probably should be "legal precedents" ("from court decisions" is redundant, and precedence is misspelled)
• Please check the spacing after foonotes. The correct format is no space in front of the footnote, but a space after the footnote.
• I leave it up to the authors if you want "just north of the international ..." vs. "very near the international...." vs. some actual distance. It is very close to the border.
• The "1975 Discovery" section gives the date of the "further survey" and "second survey", but not the date of the initial discovery of the wreck.
• Change " United States Fish and Wildlife Service who provided" to " United States Fish and Wildlife Service that provided" -"who" is for people, not institutions.
• Change "When the 1976 CURV" to "Because the 1976 CURV" - "when" implies time, but the sentence is discussing cause and effect or antecedent and conclusion.
• Change "floor.[13] After" to "floor.[13] However, after" - use a flag like "However" to alert reader you are switching to the alternative theory.
• Bad pronoun antecedent: Change "A fathometer was not installed on the Fitzgerald and it was not required by the Coast Guard." to "The Coast Guard did not require the Fitzgerald to have a fathometer, and the Fitzgerald did not have one."
• Commercialization Section - this is written in the present tense, so you are implying that commercialization is still occurring today. That is fine, if that your believe. The latest source is 2000.
• The new material on the computerized weather simulations was good. Did anyone do a computer simulation of the structure to determine the forces necessary to break the hull apart and to settle the bolt vs welds dispute? Today, computer simulations of structural strength is used in most shipbuilding designs. I'm surprized that no paper has been written by a scholar after using a computer simulation to test the alternative theories for the Fitzgerald sinking.
• What does "USCG pre-November began inspections" mean?
• Please consider rewording the maritime law paragraph to read, "Although the Fitzgerald sank in Canadian water, the sinking was governed by American admiralty law. Under the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, ships, such as the Fitzgerald, that transport goods between United States ports, must be U.S.-flag ships. Ships are governed by the admiralty courts of their flag country, and as a U.S.-flag ship, the Fitzgerald was subject to U.S. admiralty law, even when the location of the dispute is in foreign water. United States admiralty law gives jurisdiction on admiralty matters to federal courts. ....."

• WP:page numbers says, "When citing lengthy sources, you should normally identify which part of a source is being cited. For example, in the case of a book, specify the page number(s)." It appears that footnotes 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 14, 16, 17 and 40 lump together different page ranges into common footnotes for each source document. It would be a lot of work to redo all of those footnotes, but at a minimum, the footnotes to quotations should give the page number of the quote. Consider using WP:CITESHORT. Before the article gets to FA, the footnotes will have to be unlumped.

We are very close to finishing this review. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 05:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments on third read 12/29

• Do not use curly quotation marks - please change them to straight quotes (") If you are editing or spell-checking in Microsoft Word, turn off the automatic curly quotes features in Auto-correct.
• There are still spacing issues. I have fixed those that I found, but please read through one more time.
• Readers will wonder if this is the only ship owned by Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company or if it was part of a larger fleet owned by that company.
• Perhaps change "The Ontario Heritage Act requires an archaeological license to conduct sonar surveys of shipwrecks" to "The Ontario Heritage Act requires an archaeological license to conduct sonar surveys of, or dives to, shipwrecks" - the dive restriction is in the heading but not the text.
• "if its hatch hatch coamings, gaskets, and clamps were poorly maintained.[14]" - extra hatch?

Bare minimum footnote fixes

For GA, we need to give page numbers to the quotations in the article (you can fix the rest later, but you might want decide which format to use now):

• “We’re going to try for some lee from Isle Royale. You’re walking away from us anyway … I can’t stay with you.”[8]
• "Anderson received a broadcast from the Coast Guard that the Sault Ste. Marie locks had been closed and that all ships should seek a safe anchorage."[16]
• "the Fitzgerald had a 'bad list', had lost both radars, and was taking heavy seas over the deck.”[10]
• "We're in a big sea. I've never seen anything like it in my life."[13]
• "I considered it serious, but at the time it was not urgent."[6]
• "were benign in placing blame on either the company or the captain ... [and] saved the Obleby-Norton from very expensive lawsuits by the families of the lost crew."[17]
• "to be incorporated in a permanent memorial at Whitefish Point, Michigan, to honor the memory of the twenty-nine men of the SS Edmund Fitzgerald".[6]
• "[R]esponsible for maintaining the bell according to the wishes of the families. It was not to be sold, moved, or used for commercial purposes, and if the museum failed to honor those terms, the bell would be transferred to the Mariner's Church of Detroit for safekeeping."[6]
• "This placement does not support the theory that the ship plunged to the bottom in one piece, breaking apart when it struck bottom. If this were true, the two sections would be much closer. In addition, the angle, repose and mounding of clay and mud at the site indicate the stern rolled over on the surface, spilling taconite ore pellets from its severed cargo hold, and then landed on portions of the cargo itself."[8]
• "The present hatch covers are an advanced design and are considered by the entire lake shipping industry to be the most significant improvement over the telescoping leaf covers previously used for many years.... The one-piece hatch covers have proven completely satisfactory in all weather conditions without a single vessel loss in almost 40 years of use... and no water accumulation in cargo holds..."[8]
• "The 28 foot (8.5 m) load mark is visible just above the mud line and the hull beneath that is buried in mud. The bow above the mud is damaged on both sides immediately adjacent to the stem.... Movement of the survey vehicle disturbed the mud, which limited visibility and made it difficult to identify individual components of the wreckage." …[16]
• “so the bottom can be seen for the grounding evidence that is clearly visible today.”
• “the ship had a tendency to bend and spring during storms ‘like a diving board after somebody has jumped off.’”[13]
• “analogous to theorizing that Titanic was sunk by a German U-boat”.[14]
• "In my opinion, all the subsequent events arose because [McSorley] kept pushing that ship and didn't have enough training in weather forecasting to use common sense and pick a route out of the worst of the wind and seas."
• "The nature of Great Lakes shipping, with short voyages, much of the time in very protected waters, frequently with the same routine from trip to trip, leads to complacency and an overly optimistic attitude concerning the extreme weather conditions that can and do exist. The Marine Board feels that this attitude reflects itself at times in deferral of maintenance and repairs, in failure to prepare properly for heavy weather, and in the conviction that since refuges are near, safety is possible by "running for it." While it is true that sailing conditions are good during the summer season, changes can occur abruptly, with severe storms and extreme weather and sea conditions arising rapidly. This tragic accident points out the need for all persons involved in Great Lakes shipping to foster increased awareness of the hazards which exist."[16]

You can 1) append the page numbers to the footnotes, or 2) create a separate footnote that refers has the specific pages specified; or 3) create separate "References" or "Further reading" bullet lists with the actual footnotes collected under a "Notes" heading. Let's add these page cites and wrap this up. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 04:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Wrapping up

The only two issues I see remaining is adding something to explain that Northwest owned the Fitzgerald as part of a larger fleet and whether the grounding evidence is clearly visible on the boat. Good work. Racepacket (talk) 18:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Authors' working comments in response to the 12/24/10 review

• reword, "When the storm became intense, the Soo Locks at Sault Ste. Marie were closed" Do you mean "The Soo Locks at Sault Ste. Marie were closed, follow normal procedures for intense storms."

Revised with quote from Coast Guard Casualty Report.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 23:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Resolved North8000 (talk) 01:22, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

• reword "At 8:32 p.m., Cooper all but pleaded with the U. S. Coast Guard to take him seriously that the Fitzgerald had gone missing."

Revised using information from the Coast Guard Casualty Report.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 23:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Resolved North8000 (talk) 17:50, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

• "They asked the big commercial vessels to voluntarily join the search. " - when? At what time?

Revised using information from the Coast Guard Casualty Report.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 23:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Resolved North8000 (talk) 01:23, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

• (prose/reword)"A commissioner was assigned to take testimony for claims and recommend apportionments for Bradley surviving families based on average earnings, length of service, life expectancy, and family status" might be better stated as "In the Bradley case, the admiralty court appointed a commissioner to take testimony for claims and to recommend apportionments for surviving families based on average enarings, length of service, life expectancy, and family status."

Resolved

• prose/reword) "probable cause and on the condition of “gag orders”." should read "probable cause and imposed confidentiality agreements"

Resolved

• (prose/reword) "A second survey took place from November 22 through November 25 by a private contractor, Seaward, Inc." might be "The Navy also contracted with Seaward, Inc. to conduct a second survey from November 22 through November 25."

Resolved

• "The Michigan Sea Grant Program oversaw a three-day dive" do you mean "The Michigan Sea Grant Program funded a three-day dive"?

Revised by changing the word "oversaw" to "organized" as reported by author Stonehouse - funding wasn't specified in his book.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 23:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Deleted "publicly funded" as the funding was not specified in any of the sources.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 20:25, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Resolved North8000 (talk) 18:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

• was challenged by Shannon's 1994 excellent quality of detailed photography of the Fitzgerald's overturned stern that showed" change to "high resolution photography"

Change was made but I don't think it was a good one. "High Resolution" is one secondary, very specific attribute (of many) of the quality/suitability of the images. Images can be lower resolution but still high quality and vica versa. So so this might even be adding an incorrect and unreferenced fact. North8000 (talk) 17:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The original wording was the source's description.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 23:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I put it back to the original wording. This was a suggestion,and I think we made a strong case for keeping it as is.

So I think that it is resolved. North8000 (talk) 01:21, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

If it was in the reliable source, that is not a problem. Without knowing who thought it was "high quality" I thought it was puffing, but I was mistaken. Racepacket (talk) 04:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• A hand lead was the only method it had to take depth soundings." No anticedent for it - you mean the Fitzgerald.

Resolved

• (prose/reword)"The Fitzgerald had no monitoring system to monitor the presence or amount of water " -> "The Fitzgerald had no system to monitor the presence or amount of water" (note: Fitzgerald should be consistently italicized.)

Resolved

• "He told the attorneys that the Fitzgerald foundering was caused by negligence." - need cite

Resolved--Wpwatchdog (talk) 23:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• "dropped the last Woodrush life ring down to the wreck." -need cite

Not able to locate a citation. Delete?--Wpwatchdog (talk) 23:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I took it out.

Resolved.North8000 (talk) 01:21, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

• fn 8, http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=3503760 -dead

Removed?--Wpwatchdog (talk) 23:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't take it out. But I did a text search of the whole article and couldn't find it.

I think we can call this resolved. North8000 (talk) 15:46, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

• fn 6, http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/13/fitzgerald.anniversary.ap/index.html -dead

Couldn't locate this dead link in the article.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 23:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I looked too...a text search of whole article and couldn't find it.

I think we can call this resolved. North8000 (talk) 15:48, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

• Article states that wreck is in Canadian waters. Could you indicate how far it is from the international border?

See page 6 of Marine Accident Report SS EDMUND FITZGERALD Sinking in Lake Superior on November 10, 1975. I added text to the "1975 Discovery" section that gives more information on the location of the Fitzgerald wreck. I didn't add the coordinates as I recall some past discussion whether the exact location of the wreck should be included in the article. I personally think that the information is already readily available. There has been ongoing argument over the location of the wreck. Some argue that it lies right on the border and that part of the wreck lies in American water and part lies in Canadian water. Do we want to go into that discussion in the article?--Wpwatchdog (talk) 15:21, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I say put it all in there. The info is out there and so withholding it from here serves no purpose and leaves out interesting content. North8000 (talk) 15:33, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I just remembered that the coordinates are already given at the top of the article. It will take some time to pull the information from sources on whether the wreck lies right on the boundary. Where would we put that discussion in the article? The wreck location was disputed in a lawsuit. Locating the wreck on the boundary is also promoted by a group advocating another underwater survey of the wreck.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 15:46, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

According to Google maps, those co-ordinates are in Canada, about 1450 feet (1/4 mile) from the US (US/Canadian border)

If possible, I think we should put a cited sentence in there with the location. Right now what's at the top is not cited, and not even a statement. I can't imaging that there could be serious/credible questioning about it's location. But if so, I think we should put a sentence or two in on that. North8000 (talk) 19:14, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Added coordinates for wreck location to "1975 Discovery" section.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 01:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Resolved North8000 (talk) 01:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The point that should be made is that the wreck is very close to the border. Racepacket (talk) 04:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• What there any official finding as to whether the rescue operation was sufficient or whether the weather forecasts were sufficient?

See the "weather forecasting" section that states, "The NTSB investigation concluded that the NWS failed to accurately predict wave heights on 10 November." Please see a new section called “Changes to Great Lakes shipping practice after Fitzgerald sinking”.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 17:18, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Resolved North8000 (talk) 18:09, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

• Could article be expanded regarding to the aftermath of the crash in terms of better safety procedures, rescue preparations, crew training, captain certification?

We have material on this but are not sure whether or not to put in in. Concern is that the article might be bordering on being too long.

Please see a new section called “Changes to Great Lakes shipping practice after Fitzgerald sinking”.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 17:18, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Resolved North8000 (talk) 17:21, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

• Has anyone done a modern computer analysis or simulation of the ship's structure to test the various theories? Perhaps there is published schloarly literature on the topic.

I found a VERY interesting simulation that was done on the WEATHER http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/weather/weather_news/the-witch-of-november%3A-what-sank-the-edmund-fitzgerald I plan to put something in from that. North8000 (talk) 12:18, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

This NOAA study is referenced in a link in the "External Link" section - NOAA Scientists Re-Analyze Weather Conditions During Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald. The NOAA study is no longer directly available online so the article you found is a good source.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 14:19, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I put it in ("Waves and weather" section.) North8000 (talk) 19:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

So, there is the the NOAA simulation of the storm, but looks like no real simulation on the ship. There are references to Discovery channel doing a "simulation" when making a TV show, but that has proven to be elusive, probably just an adjunct to the TV show (rather than a serious study) and the second hand notes about it IMHO seem to indicate it was superficial and also not a real simulation of the ship.North8000 (talk) 15:42, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I recall reading that the NTSB conducted a test. I am still looking for the source.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 17:36, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

• Explain why the US admiralty law applied even though the wreck ultimately was found in Canada. (The trip started in the US, and the wreck was not discovered until later...)

See the text and citation added to the beginning of the "legal settlement" section of the article.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 18:52, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Resolved. North8000 (talk) 17:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

• File:Fitz Pilot House.jpg is dated 1994, but uses a pre-1978 rationale. So need to retag the photo with an applicable rationale.

The rationale for the photo is:

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 image was derived from video footage produced "after 1978 without copyright notice and it was in the public domain in its home country (Canada) on the URAA date (URAA date)." If that isn't acceptable, then we can delete the photo.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 15:33, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

This is in the image file

Presumed Resolved North8000 (talk) 18:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I see your point. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 05:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Author's working comments in response to 12/26/10 review

Following is a copy of the reviewer's 12/26/10 list. North8000 (talk) 12:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC) This is now a "frozen" record North8000 (talk) 12:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• "legal precedence from court decisions" probably should be "legal precedents" ("from court decisions" is redundant, and precedence is misspelled)

Revised.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 17:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Resolved North8000 (talk) 17:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• Please check the spacing after footnotes. The correct format is no space in front of the footnote, but a space after the footnote.

I think I just found and fixed all of the "space before" issues. "Space after" is a slower process. Over the last month I found and fixed most of those, but I work on it more. North8000 (talk) 13:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC) The I think I found and fixed the last few that didn't have a space after.

Resolved North8000 (talk) 15:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• I leave it up to the authors if you want "just north of the international ..." vs. "very near the international...." vs. some actual distance. It is very close to the border. (Plus the following in-line comment from previous worksheet was moved in by North8000:) Plus, in-line comment from previous worksheet. The point should be made that the wreck is very close to the border

Wording changed to "very near the international....". The "just north" wording came from the NTSB Accident Report.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 14:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Resolved. It would be a nice touch in the future to add the distance from the border, if we see it in a source. That may be a bit complex, because the wreckage field is probably almost as big as the distance to the border. North8000 (talk) 15:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• The "1975 Discovery" section gives the date of the "further survey" and "second survey", but not the date of the initial discovery of the wreck.

Revised with date clarification of initial discovery.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 15:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Resolved North8000 (talk) 15:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• Change " United States Fish and Wildlife Service who provided" to " United States Fish and Wildlife Service that provided" -"who" is for people, not institutions.

Revised.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 15:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Resolved North8000 (talk) 15:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• Change "When the 1976 CURV" to "Because the 1976 CURV" - "when" implies time, but the sentence is discussing cause and effect or antecedent and conclusion.

Revised.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 15:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Resolved North8000 (talk) 15:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• Change "floor.[13] After" to "floor.[13] However, after" - use a flag like "However" to alert reader you are switching to the alternative theory.

Revised.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 15:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Resolved North8000 (talk) 15:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• Bad pronoun antecedent: Change "A fathometer was not installed on the Fitzgerald and it was not required by the Coast Guard." to "The Coast Guard did not require the Fitzgerald to have a fathometer, and the Fitzgerald did not have one."

Revised.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 15:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Resolved North8000 (talk) 15:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• Commercialization Section - this is written in the present tense, so you are implying that commercialization is still occurring today. That is fine, if that your belief. The latest source is 2000.

Well, a couple weeks ago we had someone try to put Edmund Fitzgerald beer into the article under memorials.  :-) North8000 (talk) 13:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

But, I don't think that it was or is as bad / negative as the cited person said. Sure, there are Edmund Fitzgerald t-shirts, coffee cups etc. sold, and like any business, making money is part or all of the reason. Personally I am happy that those items are available to buy. And I don't think that it has been as tacky or exploitative or negative as the one cited writer feels. IMHO we should make this section less negative sounding. North8000 (talk) 03:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I reworded to reduce the assertions / make is more neutral / less negative. North8000 (talk) 10:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that this is resolved. North8000 (talk) 11:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• The new material on the computerized weather simulations was good. Did anyone do a computer simulation of the structure to determine the forces necessary to break the hull apart and to settle the bolt vs welds dispute? Today, computer simulations of structural strength is used in most shipbuilding designs. I'm surprized that no paper has been written by a scholar after using a computer simulation to test the alternative theories for the Fitzgerald sinking.

If I had to guess,it would be that having a major structural variable (the alleged large amount of broken welds) be unknown could put a damper on that.North8000 (talk) 12:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

So far as I know, no computerized simulation of the structural strength of the Fitzgerald has been done.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 17:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Wpwatchdog has done extensive work with sourcing on this, and he says the above. I also searched, and simulations were only of the water and the weather. North8000 (talk) 18:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

So, I think, resolved.(?) North8000 (talk) 18:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I was working on reference revisions, when I ran across a little bit of info on computer studies done by the NTSB. I added the following to the "Flooding of cargo hold..." section, "The NTSB conducted computer studies, testing and analysis to determine the forces necessary to collapse the hatch covers." Stonehouse reported the computer studies and page 14 of the NTSB Accident Report has a small section called "Tests and Research".--Wpwatchdog (talk) 01:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Resolved North8000 (talk) 03:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• What does "USCG pre-November began inspections" mean?

Revised to:

The USCG began the 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 of all US ships."

--Wpwatchdog (talk) 15:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Resolved North8000 (talk) 18:15, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• Please consider rewording the maritime law paragraph to read, "Although the Fitzgerald sank in Canadian water, the sinking was governed by American admiralty law. Under the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, ships, such as the Fitzgerald, that transport goods between United States ports, must be U.S.-flag ships. Ships are governed by the admiralty courts of their flag country, and as a U.S.-flag ship, the Fitzgerald was subject to U.S. admiralty law, even when the location of the dispute is in foreign water. United States admiralty law gives jurisdiction on admiralty matters to federal courts. ....."

Revised as suggested above.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 17:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Resolved North8000 (talk) 18:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• WP:page numbers says, "When citing lengthy sources, you should normally identify which part of a source is being cited. For example, in the case of a book, specify the page number(s)." It appears that footnotes 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 14, 16, 17 and 40 lump together different page ranges into common footnotes for each source document. It would be a lot of work to redo all of those footnotes, but at a minimum, the footnotes to quotations should give the page number of the quote. Consider using WP:CITESHORT. Before the article gets to FA, the footnotes will have to be unlumped.

Will start work on this.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 15:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that reviewer Racepacket indicated that this is something that will be needed for FA. So it would be for upcoming work rather than a requirement for GA. North8000 (talk) 11:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

This is now a "frozen" record North8000 (talk) 12:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Author's work area in response to comments on third read 12/29

• Do not use curly quotation marks - please change them to straight quotes (") If you are editing or spell-checking in Microsoft Word, turn off the automatic curly quotes features in Auto-correct.

I replaced all of them with regular quotes. North8000 (talk) 03:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Resolved North8000 (talk) 03:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• There are still spacing issues. I have fixed those that I found, but please read through one more time.

I went through again and fixed. But will do another recheck after the current round of refs work is completed. North8000 (talk) 03:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Just went through them again North8000 (talk) 21:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Resolved North8000 (talk) 21:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

• Readers will wonder if this is the only ship owned by Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company or if it was part of a larger fleet owned by that company.

"On April 10th, 1957 the Cleveland Plain Dealer announced the sale of the J. Burton Ayers with her fleet mates J.H. Hillman Jr. and Richard M. Marshall to the Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Co., Milwaukee, WI to be chartered for 15 years to and operated by Wilson Marine Transit Co., Cleveland, OH" (http://www.boatnerd.com/pictures/fleet/cuyahoga.htm)

Thanks for the idea and ref. I put it in.North8000 (talk) 18:54, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Resolved North8000 (talk) 18:54, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

• Perhaps change "The Ontario Heritage Act requires an archaeological license to conduct sonar surveys of shipwrecks" to "The Ontario Heritage Act requires an archaeological license to conduct sonar surveys of, or dives to, shipwrecks" - the dive restriction is in the heading but not the text.

See revision.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 14:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Resolved North8000 (talk) 01:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• "if its hatch hatch coamings, gaskets, and clamps were poorly maintained.[14]" - extra hatch?

Deleted extra "hatch".--Wpwatchdog (talk) 14:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Resolved North8000 (talk) 01:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Author's work area in response to reviewer's 12/29 listing of bare minimum footnote fixes

For GA, we need to give page numbers to the quotations in the article (you can fix the rest later, but you might want decide which format to use now):

• “We’re going to try for some lee from Isle Royale. You’re walking away from us anyway … I can’t stay with you.”[8]

Resolved North8000 (talk) 21:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• "Anderson received a broadcast from the Coast Guard that the Sault Ste. Marie locks had been closed and that all ships should seek a safe anchorage."[16]

Resolved North8000 (talk) 02:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• "the Fitzgerald had a 'bad list', had lost both radars, and was taking heavy seas over the deck.”[10]

Resolved North8000 (talk) 21:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• "We're in a big sea. I've never seen anything like it in my life."[13]

Resolved North8000 (talk) 21:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• "I considered it serious, but at the time it was not urgent."[6]

Resolved North8000 (talk) 18:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• "were benign in placing blame on either the company or the captain ... [and] saved the Obleby-Norton from very expensive lawsuits by the families of the lost crew."[17]

Resolved North8000 (talk) 21:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• "to be incorporated in a permanent memorial at Whitefish Point, Michigan, to honor the memory of the twenty-nine men of the SS Edmund Fitzgerald".[6]

Resolved North8000 (talk) 18:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• "[R]esponsible for maintaining the bell according to the wishes of the families. It was not to be sold, moved, or used for commercial purposes, and if the museum failed to honor those terms, the bell would be transferred to the Mariner's Church of Detroit for safekeeping."[6]

Resolved North8000 (talk) 18:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• "This placement does not support the theory that the ship plunged to the bottom in one piece, breaking apart when it struck bottom. If this were true, the two sections would be much closer. In addition, the angle, repose and mounding of clay and mud at the site indicate the stern rolled over on the surface, spilling taconite ore pellets from its severed cargo hold, and then landed on portions of the cargo itself."[8]

Resolved North8000 (talk) 21:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• "The present hatch covers are an advanced design and are considered by the entire lake shipping industry to be the most significant improvement over the telescoping leaf covers previously used for many years.... The one-piece hatch covers have proven completely satisfactory in all weather conditions without a single vessel loss in almost 40 years of use... and no water accumulation in cargo holds..."[8]

Resolved North8000 (talk) 21:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• "The 28 foot (8.5 m) load mark is visible just above the mud line and the hull beneath that is buried in mud. The bow above the mud is damaged on both sides immediately adjacent to the stem.... Movement of the survey vehicle disturbed the mud, which limited visibility and made it difficult to identify individual components of the wreckage." …[16]

Resolved North8000 (talk) 02:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• “so the bottom can be seen for the grounding evidence that is clearly visible today.”

We should take a close look at this one. It seems to directly conflict with everybody else on an observable fact....he's saying that grounding evidence is clearly visible on the boat. North8000 (talk) 21:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Hainault's claim of photographic evidence of grounding does differ from all the other conclusions. However, his book does include the photographs that he says support his conclusions. I can add a citation behind the above quote. Do you think we need to add something about his different conclusions or just take the whole thing out? The seiche that is part of his theory did actually occur.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 18:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm assuming that this is in a RS / that he is considered serious by a RS? If not, I'd pull it. If so, I'd double check that we correctly quoted him, and put a page # cite with the quote. This is not just a different theory, it's a stated direct observation which conflicts with direct observations by others. Then we should add a note that his observation is different than the others, or else this will be confusing. IMHO most of his theory sounds flaky. Plus the fact that it started from being a clsss project which could mean the theory exists because the assignment was to invent a theory. However, the second (Superior) shoal and the seiche are interesting content. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Stonehouse included Hainault's theory in every edition of his book, including his latest 2006 edition. I agree that when Hainault uses "singing of the sirens" to make his point in his book, he does come off as flaky. However, his theory addresses some facts that are not included in the other theories. I added a page # cite to the quote and changed the text to read, "In 1996, Hainault differed from other theorist's interpretations of photographic evidence of the Fitzgerald wreck. He claimed that underwater photos of the Fitzgerald wreck showed metal plating "torn like so much paper" and pushed in on the stern’s hull." If you think Hainault's theory detracts from the article, please don't hesitate to take it out or edit it as you think best. Your work has really improved the article.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 20:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Nice work. I think that we should leave it as you have it. North8000 (talk) 21:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Resolved North8000 (talk) 20:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

• “the ship had a tendency to bend and spring during storms ‘like a diving board after somebody has jumped off.’”[13]

Resolved North8000 (talk) 02:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• “analogous to theorizing that Titanic was sunk by a German U-boat”.[14]

Resolved North8000 (talk) 13:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

• "In my opinion, all the subsequent events arose because [McSorley] kept pushing that ship and didn't have enough training in weather forecasting to use common sense and pick a route out of the worst of the wind and seas."

Does the cite (which has a page number) apply to this? If so, we could just repeat it with the quote to confirm. North8000 (talk) 13:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Resolved. Racepacket (talk) 18:26, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

• "The nature of Great Lakes shipping, with short voyages, much of the time in very protected waters, frequently with the same routine from trip to trip, leads to complacency and an overly optimistic attitude concerning the extreme weather conditions that can and do exist. The Marine Board feels that this attitude reflects itself at times in deferral of maintenance and repairs, in failure to prepare properly for heavy weather, and in the conviction that since refuges are near, safety is possible by "running for it." While it is true that sailing conditions are good during the summer season, changes can occur abruptly, with severe storms and extreme weather and sea conditions arising rapidly. This tragic accident points out the need for all persons involved in Great Lakes shipping to foster increased awareness of the hazards which exist."[16]

Resolved North8000 (talk) 16:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

You can 1) append the page numbers to the footnotes, or 2) create a separate footnote that refers has the specific pages specified; or 3) create separate "References" or "Further reading" bullet lists with the actual footnotes collected under a "Notes" heading. Let's add these page cites and wrap this up. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 04:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Resolved North8000 (talk) 21:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Haus

Resolved comments from Haus

There are some extra capital letters lurking in section header. See MOS:HEAD for the guideline. The words "Instrumentation" and "Television" are two instances of this. Cheers. Haus^Talk 08:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Fixed, now, I think. Left Great Lakes as I think it should be capitalized as a place name/ proper noun. North8000 (talk) 12:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. You're correct about "Great Lakes". Cheers. Haus^Talk 12:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time buying that there was a single large cargo hold as implied in the construction section. Granted, many things have changed since the 1950s, but given the problems bulkers have with longitudinal stresses, it seems like the idea of segregating holds probably goes back a while. If there is a reference for the ship having a single open hold, could you cite it? Thanks. Haus^Talk 17:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Fixed it to say "cargo holds" and added a citation.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 18:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Haus^Talk 18:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)