Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sinking of SS Princess Alice/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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 18 March 2019 [1].

Sinking of SS Princess Alice edit

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 21:58, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the SS Princess Alice (1865), a pleasure steamer that operated on the Thames in 1860s and '70s; In September 1878 she was hit by a coal carrier and sank in around four minutes. Between 600 and 700 people died. There are strong echoes of the late 20th-century tragedy that befell the Marchioness. This has recently been re-written extensively and any comments and suggestions are very welcome. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 21:58, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Wehwalt edit

Many thanks Wehwalt, for your comments, which were helpful, as always. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:37, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ian edit

Recusing from coord duties, I began reading this purely out of curiosity as I'd never heard of it, and then decided I'd like to review in earnest. Not that anything major leaps out, it seems like a good succinct account of a very unhappy incident -- some of my copyedit may reflect subtle differences in AusEng v. BritEng, so happy to discuss any concerns there. Because it's early days, I'll park my review there and try to come back after a few more people have had their say. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Ian, many thanks for the copy edit. No complaints from me on the changes - they all seem to be appropriate in BrEng too. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:37, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Been a couple of weeks now, checked changes since I last reviewed/copyedited and see no reason not to support, only conditional on a clean source review , which I think is still needed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:35, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Ian - I'm most obliged. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Tim edit

Support. I was one of the peer reviewers, and my few and minor queries were dealt with then. On re-reading the article I think it meets the FA criteria, and I support its promotion to FA. A grim tale, told without sensationalism but unflinchingly; amply and appropriately illustrated; and evidently comprehensive. Tim riley talk 15:03, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Tim, your earlier comments were most useful. Cheers. - SchroCat (talk) 15:37, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • Suggest scaling up the map
  • File:Princess_alice_collision_in_thames.jpg needs a US PD tag
  • Images with the UK-unknown tag should include indication of what research was done to try to ascertain authorship - eg. have the images been credited to anyone?
  • File:'Princess_Alice'_(1865)_beached_after_being_cut_in_two_in_a_collision_(1878).jpg needs a US PD tag and author date of death. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:10, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many thanks Nikkimaria. The top three are all done, the bottom one is something of a problem as we have no idea who the author was. Can you advise which would be the best tag to put on it given that? Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 10:04, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Kablammo edit

Support. Meets all criteria. Kablammo (talk) 13:46, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Kablammo - and for your earlier edits and comments on the measurements. Cheer - SchroCat (talk) 19:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Brianboulton edit

I never could resist a shipwreck. I've confined my comments for the present to the infobox and lead, and will get to the rest presently.

  • Infobox: The statement "140 years ago" is time specific, and becomes ever less accurate each day that passes. It doesn't seem necessary and I suggest you delete it.
    • It's coded so that each 3 September it automatically changes. - SchroCat (talk) 08:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead generally. Could do with a bit more basic information, particularly as you have chosen the mini-infobox format (which is fine by me). For example, did the collision occur in daylight? Between 600 and 700 people died: were they all from the Princess Alice with no casualties from the collier? How many of the Alice's complement survived? Any subdivision of casualties as between men, women and children, or between crew and passengers? No doubt much of the information is found in the article, but the most important aspects need to be summarised in the lead.
    • I've added a little more. The main point added is that there was never a headcount made, so they've never worked out how many died. Neither of the two main sources (Thurston and Lock) give a precise figure for the number lost, or breakdown of the know dead. - SchroCat (talk) 08:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say in the first paragraph that the collision took place on the River Thames, but when discussing the sewage question in paragraph 3 you refer to "the location it was released into the sea". Shouldn't that be "into the river"?
  • 2nd paragraph: "On her homeward journey..." You need to specify this particular homeward journey with a date reference, e.g. "On her homeward journey on 3 September..." otherwise it reads as if this was the only homeward journey the ship ever made.
  • 3rd paragraph: Can you clarify the nature and purpose of the updated equipment provided to the police? I assume it was to do with rescue and recovery but I may be misreading

Enthralling if rather distressing reading. More comments to follow. Brianboulton (talk) 23:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Brian, and I look forward to more comments. There are a number of parallels with the Marchioness here - which is at PR, if you can brace yourself for it. 30 years ago this year, and still shocking. - SchroCat (talk) 08:48, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing....: after a full readthrough I have only a few further comments to raise:

  • According to the lead, the Alice broke into three parts, but according to the main text she "split in two and sank"
  • We read that shortly before the collision the helm of the Alice was entrusted to an inexperienced passenger-seaman by the name of Ayres. This fact is not referred to again and is not mentioned in the subsequent reports. I am surprised by this, as the proximity to the accident seems significant; was Ayres's role, or the actions of the captain in appointing him, ever questions or raised as a factor leading to the collision?
    • Surprisingly not. The two main sources don't refer to him at all, and his name doesn't come up in Guardian or Times coverage of the inquiry (as Ayers or Ayres) - SchroCat (talk) 20:01, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that the £35,000 public subscription would have been distributed to the victims' families rather than to the victims, as stated.
  • I'm still not clear as to the role and responsibilities of the Marine Police force, either generally or in the wake of the accident. "Responsibility for the Thames", as stated in the lead, seems rather too broad and perhaps could be slightly expanded on in the text.

I've tweaked to say "policing the Thames", with a footnote lower down. - SchroCat (talk) 20:18, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have. A chilling article, well put together, and I look to support when these final points have been considered. Brianboulton (talk) 16:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support: All my concerns now answered. Fine work. Brianboulton (talk) 15:58, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from KJP1 edit

My apologies, meant to get to this a while ago. I commented fully at PR, here and the subsequent changes have further polished what was already an excellent article. Pleased to Support. KJP1 (talk) 19:32, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks KJP1 - I am much obliged for your comments at PR, where they were most welcome. - SchroCat (talk) 16:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • "84 (45 women, 21 men, 12 girls and 8 boys)" - those numbers add up to 86?
Oops! Good spot - 6 boys: it's a poor quality scan. - SchroCat (talk) 16:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are Foley and Halliday meant to have the same publisher and location? If so, should be similarly formatted
  • What makes bhandl a high-quality reliable source?
  • National Lottery is a dead link
  • All done - Many thanks, as always. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from SN54129 edit

Clearly, I must oppose, as SchroCat, it would seem, can't even be bothered to invent new rivers, he merely writes about them.

  • I only slimmed down the docks to river size, rather than inventing them! Anyway, Goran has now got rid of them altogether. - SchroCat (talk) 16:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Np, I was chuckling over your earlier reply, that's all  :)
It's only very minor, and there isn't much we can do without loosing an image altogether. That's always possible, but I think they're all good at illustrating the point. - SchroCat (talk) 16:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also on images, you swap in and out of using both |upright and |alt=; I'm thinking consistency?
They're doing two different things: one is size, the other is alternative text. - SchroCat (talk) 16:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed—I mean, some articles use |alt= while others don't, and some use |upright= while others don't.
We don't need alt text for all images (either because the caption says all that is needed, or is the image is just for illustration); upright is only missing from one image, but we don't need to control the size of that one, so it's OK without it. - SchroCat (talk) 19:42, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree.
  • The "Aftermath" section is (rightfully) humungus; how about a section within it—perhaps for the inquest (The first two weeks of Carttar's inquest... would be a good break—and might create a bit more space re. the sandwich).
I'll have a think on that: the problem is the inquests start much earlier than the suggested point (at para three). We could break it at "Running at the same time as the coroner's inquest was a Board of Trade inquiry", I guess, although that's way down the section. What to call the first subsection tho, as it covers both inquests and the raising of the vessel? - SchroCat (talk) 16:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This, perhaps? It's really the chunky quote from the inquest that bloats the section, and there's nothing that can (or should!) be done about that.
Hmmm... I'm not a fan of that, mostly because the sections cover a little more than the subtitles suggest
Disagree.
  • Re. References, the websites could do with archiving for posterity, and there's some identifiers needed on the papers. However, although I think the archiving's important, I often can't be arsed with digging out OCLCs for old newspaper either, so meh.
Yep, I keep forgetting about the website archiving, so I'll get onto that shortly. Newspapers have dates, which is much better than the OCLC system - SchroCat (talk) 16:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The links that can be archived have been now. - SchroCat (talk) 20:34, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Great article: gutted I wasn't here sooner. If I remember rightly, I once commented to you, something like, that the event was a massive part of eastend history and all it's got is some small memorial in a churchyard. It may only have a small memorial in a churchyard, but it's now got the Wikipedia article it deserves. The Princess Alice will be remembered again. ——SerialNumber54129 15:43, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for these. There are a couple of points I'd like to mull on further, but I'll get onto the archiving shortly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks SN - I'm much obliged. Thanks also for the CB tag you added earlier - that's a useful one to know! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:28, 7 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/Sinking_of_SS_Princess_Alice/archive1&oldid=888413634"