Talk:Sinking of the Titanic/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dolphin51 (talk · contribs) 11:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

This is already a high quality article. It is a credit to all those who have worked on it so diligently. I expect I can finish the review in a very short time. Dolphin (t) 07:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Images

Five images checked. All adequately licensed. Dolphin (t) 12:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Lead

Explanatory Note No. 4 states Most died after 20 minutes. I think this is refering primarily to life expectancy in sea water at a temperature of -2°C. There were approximately 1000 people left to this fate and no-one was there to record the moment of each one's passing. I suggest the wording of the Note should be adjusted to avoid the impression that this was a scientific experiment or that Wikipedia knows after how many minutes the majority died. Dolphin (t) 07:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• You have a point. The source actually says: After 20 minutes, the wailing gradually began to die away until by 3:00 A.M. all was quiet. It seems like they began to die after 20 minutes, not that they were dead. How about I just rephrase the source? - Soerfm (talk) 13:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Quite honestly I think the note is completely unnecessary; it doesn't add anything substantial to the article to note an exception to the rule when the line already says almost all. I've therefore removed it. Prioryman (talk) 21:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Effects of the collision

In the 3rd para it states that the watertight doors could be closed remotely by the bridge. The bridge is not a person so should that be from the bridge?

• Nautically the bridge is often used to refer to the officers on the bridge, especially when used in conjunction with the engine room. It is a common reification, but if it strikes these pesky landfolk strangely let's change it. :D Rumiton (talk) 15:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Since most of the readers will be landlubbers I guess we'd better try to avoid confusing them. :-) I've made the change. Prioryman (talk) 21:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Andrews told Smith the ship could remain afloat for no longer than about two more hours. I think more is redundant and should be removed. Alternatively, another two hours would be less colloquial. Dolphin (t) 07:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Agree. Rumiton (talk) 16:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• It's gone. Prioryman (talk) 21:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

00:05-00:45 - Preparing to evacuate

The 1st para states The stewards lower down had to manage. I suggest lower down should be replaced by a more accurate expression.

• Agreed, reworded as "The second- and third-class stewards". Prioryman (talk) 21:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The 4th para states that Smith had spent forty years at sea with 27 years in command. This mixture of words and numerals to indicate numbers should be avoided.

• Agreed, reworded. Prioryman (talk) 21:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The 4th para ends with the sentence Smith appears to have kept. It began as an excellent sentence until the bracketed statement shared only by Bruce Ismay and Thomas Andrews was inserted, disrupting its flow. I suggest the bit about Ismay and Andrews should be either worked into the sentence in a more elegant way, or be removed and used to craft a new sentence.

The 5th para has a sentence beginning They were now faced with the complex task. It ends with the words 70 ft down the sides of the ship. These concluding words almost appear to have been tacked onto the end as an afterthought because immediately prior to them the sentence diverts to say into the North Atlantic. The sentence can be streamlined by removing into the North Atlantic. Readers will be in no doubt as to which of the world's oceans played host to this accident. Dolphin (t) 07:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• True enough. :-) Edited to remove the geographical bit. Prioryman (talk) 21:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The final sentence includes hundreds of people, predominately men. Should that be predominantly? Dolphin (t) 01:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• It should. Fixed. Prioryman (talk) 08:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

02:20-04:10 - Passengers and crew in the water

In the last para there are four sentences about collapsible lifeboat B. Inserted among these four is the extraneous sentence As dawn approached, the wind rose and the sea became increasingly choppy. To keep the four about boat B together, and to preserve the chronology, I suggest the sentence about the approach of dawn should be moved to the end of the para. Dolphin (t) 02:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• I think this is actually necessary - it links directly into the next sentence. It's because the wind rose and the sea became increasingly choppy that those on collapsible B had to stand up to balance the boat, as it was losing its precarious stability by that point. I've made this clearer in the passage. Prioryman (talk) 08:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It now works much better. Dolphin (t) 11:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

04:10-09:15 - Rescue and departure

At the end of the first para it states It was only recovered a month later. The word only appears to be redundant.

The last para ends search for a couple more hours. The word more makes this sentence unnecessarily colloquial. Dolphin (t) 02:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Both changes made. Prioryman (talk) 08:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Aftermath

The 3rd para ends which had not been required prior to the disaster. It isn't clear whether this is referring to all three major changes mentioned, or only to the one about wireless equipment being manned around the clock. Regardless of the answer, I suggest the above words can be deleted. It is clear they had not been required prior to the disaster, that is why they were major changes in maritime regulations. Dolphin (t) 02:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Fair point, change made. Prioryman (talk) 12:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Conclusion

1. Prose: Excellent
2. Style: Complies
3. Verifiable: Complies via citations and references
4. Broad: Sufficiently broad coverage of a very specific topic
5. Focused Very focused
6. NPOV: Complies
7. Stable: Stable
8. Images: Checked
9. Overall: Pass
   

Dolphin (t) 21:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.