Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Marchioness disaster/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 31 March 2019 [1].

Marchioness disaster edit

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 09:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For those who remember it, the Marchioness disaster was a shocking occurrence. 51 people died after a large dredger ran over a night-time pleasure boat hosting a birthday party. After such a loss, the victims' families were treated shoddily by a stony-hearted bureaucracy: requests for an inquiry were denied; the hands were needlessly removed from the bodies; families were denied access to the remains; compensation was derisory. It took eleven years for decency to prevail in the form of an in-depth inquiry with far-reaching recommendations. It's the thirtieth anniversary of the tragedy this August, and time we ensured the article is the best it can be. – SchroCat (talk) 09:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley edit

I do indeed remember it, with a shudder, and did not at all enjoy peer reviewing the article, but my few comments at the PR were duly dealt with, and I support the promotion of the article: it seems to me comprehensive, balanced, well and widely sourced, and meeting the FA criteria in every respect. Thank you, SchroCat, for bringing the article up to this level. Tim riley talk 17:09, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Wehwalt edit

Just a few items:

  • " The pleasure steamer Marchioness sank after being hit twice by the dredger Bowbelle, at about 1:46 am, between Cannon Street railway bridge and Southwark Bridge." I would consider cutting one or both commas.
  • " It took thirty seconds for Marchioness to sink; 24 bodies were later found within the ship when it was raised." I might cut "later". I think people understand that however long it took to raise, it was long enough for people to drown.
  • "some were former student friends" This reads a bit oddly. Were they no longer friends?
  • "In 1992 the families of the victims became aware that several of the hands had been removed from several of the bodies.[102]" I would cut the first instance of "several of" leaving "the hands ..." etc. I must admit it occurred to me to wonder how many hands the dead had to begin with, if several were removed.
  • "if he refused to hold the inquests, and he subsequently announced that they would go ahead.[105]
The resumed inquest " inquest or inquests?
  • "they stated that the agency "accepted that events which occurred in 1986 have no practical relevance on his current fitness".[123] The MCA also picked up on something that had been raised during the Clarke inquiry: that Henderson had forged certificates and testimonials of his service from 1985–1986. The MCA stated that they "deplored" the forgeries, which Henderson had used to gain his Master's Licence.[123]" These sentences seem to be in an odd order. I would expect, for example, the initial quote to come last.
Quite interesting. I hadn't known about this.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:34, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks Wehwalt. Your points all covered - hopefully suitably! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:12, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:46, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • Suggest scaling up the map
  • Done - SchroCat (talk) 13:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest adding alt text
  • Done - SchroCat (talk) 15:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marchioness,_damaged_and_beached.png: the unique historic images tag is intended for cases where the image itself, not just the subject, is historically significant - eg Tank Man. Also, possible to find a more reputable source confirming what this image depicts? That applies also to File:Damage_to_the_pleasure_cruiser_Marchioness.jpg
  • Tags now changed - SchroCat (talk) 15:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marchioness_overview.png: image description should include sourcing for your additions. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:34, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Nikkimaria - I'm much obliged to you, as always. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Supportfrom Nick-D edit

I remember this disaster being used as a key case study in an OH&S course I did (in Australia) about a decade ago, so it's an important topic to bring to FAC. I have the following comments:

  • "four of whom were crew or bar staff" - not sure about the "or" here as it suggests that the people sailing the ship were also running the bar, when the article later states that she had a crew of two and was also carrying two bar staff.
  • Can the "Marchioness" section go further into the ship's safety features, or the lack thereof? From my vague recollections of the training course, part of the problem was that she was not easy for passengers to exit and/or didn't carry enough life jackets.
  • I'd also suggest scaling up the map
  • "His senior in the department" - it seems better to use their title (perhaps after these words)
  • As the "Inquests and inquiries" section covers several investigations which took place over a lengthy period, I'd suggest splitting it into sub-sections. I'd suggest a sub-section for the flawed investigations in the 1980s and 1990s and one for the 1999-2000 inquiry which tried to set the record right. Nick-D (talk) 00:33, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks Nick. A couple I need to look some things up (and look closely at where to make the splits). Thanks very much for your other comments here. - SchroCat (talk) 21:45, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks Nick. I've addressed your comments - hopefully satisfactorily. Please let me know if there is anything you'd like worked on. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments are now addressed. Great work with this article. Nick-D (talk) 09:49, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim edit

I remember this too, and your article evokes it well. Usual high standard, a few quibbles Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • She spent most of her life on the Thames etc —Doesn’t bother me, but I thought that we were supposed to refer to boats as “it” these days?
  • I thought so too, but I was pointed to WP:SHIPPRONOUNS, which says we’re ok as long as the use is consistent- SchroCat (talk) 14:19, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • reconditioned to form an upper and lower saloon — sounds more like a rebuild than recondition
  • The ship's captain, Douglas Henderson, was 31; he undertook a Deep Sea apprenticeship until 1978 —odd stress to my ears, perhaps The ship's captain, Douglas Henderson, aged 31, undertook a Deep Sea apprenticeship until 1978?
  • "Second Mate" is capped, but not "captain" or "master"?
  • trimmed down —perhaps a gloss or link for we landlubbers?
  • six imperial pints —as in "I went down the rub-a-dub and necked six imperial pints"?. I’d prefer “six pints”, with a link to imperial pint
  • Done. (A problem with using the "convert" template, but I've bypassed that now. - SchroCat (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merchant Shipping Act 1988—missing a preceding "the"?
  • English law provides no compensation for fatal accidents, other than for funeral expenses— Is it worth mentioning the Fatal Accidents Act 1976?
  • Yes. I'll be back with the sources tomorrow and I'll have a dig around for some info to add. - SchroCat (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks Jim, I'm much obliged. I've done the straightforward stuff, and I'll be back with the sources tomorrow, when I'll work on the remaining three points. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave the recondition bit as your call, otherwise no concerns so changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Jim. I've tweaked the 'recondition' part to say the upper works were rebuilt. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Brianboulton edit

I participated in the peer review and made a few points there. I have since re-read the article and have a few more drafting points to suggest:

  • Lead: You should say who the "South Coast Shipping company" were. Also, the word "company" should be capitalised as part of the firm's title.
  • Lead final sentence: as written it appears that the increase in safety measures followed the 2000 report but I suspect there were more immediate measures taken in the aftermath of the disaster. Can you clarify?
  • Background – Marchioness: "run-up" requires a hyphen (per O D of E)
  • Background – Bowbelle: Para 3 begins: "At the time of the collision..." – clarify that this is referring to the Marchioness disaster rather than to the collision referred to in the previous paragraph
  • Collision section – 0.00am to 07.00 am: "at 1:49 am they reported to TNS that:..." I would replace "they" with Bowbelle, and delete "that", as what follows is a verbatim quotation, not a summary or paraphrase. Do we not know who on Bowbelle radioed this message? It sounds as though it was the captain
  • Reworked to show it was the captain, and deleted "that". - SchroCat (talk) 13:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inquests and inquiries - 1989 to 1997: It may be more accurate to say that the £6 million compensation was paid to the victims' families rather than to the victims. In the same section:
  • "liability to the crash" should be "liability for the crash" (although the words "for the crash" are largely redundant)
  • I would delete "by counsel for the organisation" as unnecessary detail and potentially confusing
  • "which meant that a full inquest would not take place in case it prejudiced any future trial". Suggest "could" rather than "would"
  • "four owners of Bowbelle": according to previous information Bowbelle was owned by East Coast Aggregates Limited, part of the larger RMC Group – I can't identify four owners
  • All the above in this section done - SchroCat (talk) 13:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1992 the families of the victims became aware that the hands had been removed from several of the bodies" - 25 is a lot more than several. And was it really three years before the families discovered this gruesome detail?
  • Yes. The families were not told at the time, and it only came out later. - SchroCat (talk) 13:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compensation: I may be missing a point somewhere, but if the companies behind Bowbelle and Marchioness agreed to pay up to £6 million in compensation, why was action in the civil courts necessary to obtain compensation? Also, the statement "In most cases, the families of the Marchioness victims received little more than the cost of the funeral" implies that a lot less than £6 million was paid out.
  • Info about the "without prejudice" nature of the offers. - SchroCat (talk) 15:38, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Generally this is a coherent account of a distressing event, and I look forward to supporting in due course. Brianboulton (talk) 21:00, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Brian: I'm much obliged for your thoughts and comments. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:38, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, forgot to add my Support. Brianboulton (talk) 13:28, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Many thanks, Brian. I'm much obliged, as always, to your comments. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 00:08, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Factotem edit

Some comments below with a few minor quibbles/observations, but I found nothing significant other than an unsourced sentence and an entry in the bibliography that need attention. The sources look to be of the necessary quality and reliability, and I saw nothing in a GBooks search to suggest that the article is not a comprehensive survey of available sources.

General

  • External links check: Obituary Eileen Dallaglio, Founder Marchioness Action Group (end of External links section), page not found
  • Last sentence in the Compensation section is unsourced.
  • This was added yesterday and I forgot to add the ref when I did it (big slap on the wrist!) Now added - SchroCat (talk) 10:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
New book added to the bibliography checks out fine. Factotem (talk) 11:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography (Books)

  • The details provided for The Maritime Engineering Reference Book: A Guide to Ship Design, Construction and Operation are from two different editions that have different paginations (bolding indicates information provided in the bibliography):
1. 902-page edition published in 2008 by Elsevier with ISBN 978-0-7506-8987-8 (the Gbook link is to this edition);
2. 920-page e-book edition published in 2011 by Butterworth-Heinemann with ISBN 978-0-08-056009-0 Worldcat listing;
The difference in pagination might affect the page numbers in the refs, so I think this needs to be addressed;
  • How odd: now tweaked - SchroCat (talk) 10:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Less odd, now I look closer: the pre-tweaked version used the citation provided by http://reftag.appspot.com/ when the Google book link was added, so the masterfile used by the reftag contains slightly duff info (only slightly duff as Butterworth-Heinemann is an imprint of Elsevier, which explains part of the confusion. - SchroCat (talk) 11:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not familiar with that tool, but just about every source review I've done has these kind of inconsistencies when both GBook link and ISBN numbers are provided. Factotem (talk) 11:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Patrick Stephens, publisher of The Ships That Saved an Army: A Comprehensive Record of the 1,300 'Little Ships' of Dunkirk, appears to be located in Wellingborough, Northamptonshire, according to Worldcat, not Sparkford, Somerset, as stated in the bibliography.

Bibliography (Journals)

  • doi link for Gibson's Toward an Intermediate Position on Corporate Moral Personhood is dead;
  • That works for me - can you try again? - SchroCat (talk) 10:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously just a glitch. Fine now. Factotem (talk) 11:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI: There's an OCLC number (537997776) available for Ships Monthly according to Worldcat, though I don't believe it's a deal breaker if it's not specified in the bibliography;
  • FYI: Also an OCLC number (71257254) and an ISSN number (2329-3179) available for Shipping and Trade Law according to Worldcat, though again, not a major issue.

Bibliography (News articles)

  • Cooper's Pleasure boat disaster on River Thames was a birthday voyage from celebration to tragedy is missing the publisher (Independent?);
  • Does Report calls for Thames Lookouts by the Guardian have no author info, or has that been mistakenly missed from the bibliography?
  • Just curious. Some news items have links but no page numbers (e.g. Ecott in the Guardian), most have page numbers but no links (e.g.Dyer in the Guardian). Any reason?
  • It depends on where they were found. Some of the articles pre-date the internet, so they are paper versions; some online articles don't make the newspaper. - SchroCat (talk) 10:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thought as much. Thanks. Factotem (talk) 11:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's all. Factotem (talk) 10:31, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Factotem, I'm much obliged to you. I think I have covered all the necessary in this series of edits, but please let me know if I've missed any, or something else comes to mind. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:05, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome. All good now. Support on sourcing. Factotem (talk) 11:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Marchioness_disaster/archive1&oldid=890375680"