Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SS Christopher Columbus

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 00:05, 28 March 2008.

---

SS Christopher Columbus

Check external links

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it's an interesting article about an obscure but important part of maritime history. SS Chris was an oddball.. the only passenger whaleback ever, built for the Worlds Columbian Exposition, she carried over 2 million passengers in her 40+ year career, but she is not very well known. She looked funny to be sure, but she was built in record time and she was designed to load and unload thousands of passengers fast, and to move at a high rate of speed while sailing... I think this article meets all of the criteria, and can be modified to meet any that I missed :). It's stable, and on a non controversial subject so sticking to the NPOV was pretty straightforward. It started as a spinoff from Whaleback, made WP:DYK, and during the course of two GA nominations, (one failed and one successful), has had a lot of eyes on it and a lot of hands helping make it better. I think it's pretty thoroughly referenced, (almost) all the links check out mechanically, and it's got an interesting selection of images, (including a painting, photos, postcards, a newspaper ad and even a free pass signed by her designer), well spaced and not overwhelming... There's a quote from her designer, cites from the NY Times about her impromptu racing career and lots of other tidbits. This is my first FA nomination so it's with a mixture of trepidation and excitement that I submit this article for your feedback and review. I look forward to taking on board ouch! all actionable suggestions and ending up with a better article, pass or fail. Thanks for your time and consideration. ++Lar: t/c 20:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Belatedly adding myself as co-nom; looking forward to putting her through the wringer to get her up to FA! Maralia (talk) 03:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

<article stats moved to talk page>

Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk) 13:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Heading on infobox seems to have become an equals sign.
  • Got that sorted, but should there be something above the image? ++Lar
• Put citations in numerical order (right now you have a [4][5][3])
  • I think I got that one sorted. ++Lar
    • Note that Giggy thinks multiple refs are bad. Thoughts? ++Lar: t/c 22:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I think multiple refs are fine where appropriate. However, if you're citing a single verifiable fact then a single reference should suffice. If you're referencing a widely held opinion (for example) then more than one reference is suitable... Just my thoughts though! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• Headings per WP:HEAD avoid "The" at the beginning.
  • "First whalebacks" reads funny... would "Predecessor whalebacks" be better to avoid the "the"? I tried "Background and proposal"... what do you think? ++Lar
    • I don't see why First whalebacks is inappropriate really... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Well, the section also gives motivation for the build so retitling it to "Background..." seemed better. Open to suggestions though. ++Lar: t/c 22:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Year ranges in the infobox need to be seperated by en-dash per WP:DASH.
  • Is this a special character like — is? When I went to WP:DASH and to the dash article I could not find a representation for it. I removed all spaces (so that "(1933 - 1934)" became "(1933-1934)") but I'm not sure what char to use. Suggestions? ++Lar
    • Yes, it's just like that, but – instead. If you're still stuck, shout and I'll fix it and show you what I meant... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Heh, you beat me to it... what about stuff like "42-inch", "14-foot" and the like, does that use – too? ++Lar: t/c 20:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
        • No, those stay as hyphens... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• "on the lakes " - explain for non-experts.
  • sorted. ("on the Great Lakes") ++Lar: t/c 20:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
• Avoid squashing text between a pair of images per WP:MOS#Images.
  • A lot of people have thrashed around on the number, placement, etc. of images on this article. I think all the images it has are needed. I've tried {{imagestack}} but had mixed results. Which sections do you think are bad, which images? I could use a little help on this one... anyone else have ideas? ++Lar: t/c 20:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Since the images are all public domain not all necessarily have to be in the article but rather can roost on Commons. I'm sure if the user is interested in more media they'll figure out how to find it using the commons template. Encouraging the user to visit and use this great sister project whenever possible is a benefit to both parties I believe. 76.10.141.172 (talk) 21:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
      • As an admin, bureaucrat, oversighter and checkuser on Commons verify, I absolutely agree that Commons is an awesome project... more than a sister, in fact, she's a mother to us all :)... And I put a gallery at the bottom of the article, and a link to still more additional images I found during my researches, using {{commonscat}} as well, some time ago. But every image in there, I contend, is important to telling the story the article has to tell. I'm not averse to removal, mind you, but this article has been around a while and has already has quite a few removed or shuffled... I did try a good dose of {{imagestack}}... see what you think. Or propose specific images that could be removed, perhaps? ++Lar: t/c 22:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Hard to say really, the additional images section gallery would seem the only one to remove without sacrificing too much encyclopedic value. Your choice, I'm only a spectator of this board - you're the one who has to capture the king. 76.10.141.172 (talk) 23:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Should be a good starter. Let me know when you're done. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support - my issues dealt with. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support A good article which meets the criteria. --Nick Dowling (talk) 22:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

My issues have been resolved. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

{{*Comment. I was surprised to see that I had made so many edits to this article, as I've not really looked at it since it's successful GA review (I was the reviewer). I do have just a few comments:

• "... reportedly also the longest vessel on the Great Lakes at the time of her launching." I'm not an expert on maritime terminology, but "launching" sounds a bit awkward. Why not " ... when she was launched"?

• Yup. ++Lar

• "Construction of the Columbus was ordered by the World's Fair Steamship Company at a cost of $360,000." Being picky, I know, but it wasn't the ordering that cost $360,000.

• tried "..at a projected cost of $360,000." instead. ++Lar

• "The cabins and public spaces were outfitted with oak paneling, ...". Not sure that outfitted is right here. Fitted out?

• Yup. +++Lar

• "This placed Columbus among the fastest to be built ships to that time." Seems a bit awkward. Maybe better to merge that sentence with the previous one?

• Tried it. It's still a bit awkward though even with the join. Any ideas there? ++Lar

• "The builders further promised rapid loading and unloading, predicting that the vessel would be able to embark 5,000 passengers in five minutes, and disembark the same passengers in even less time. The Columbus was specified to be able run the six miles from the dock downtown to the fairgrounds at Jackson Park and 64th Street in 20 minutes." Having read that I was left wondering whether the ship actually met those design criteria.

• I never found a cite for whether she did or not, so I was left wondering that too! A lot of advertisements bragging about various aspects of how fast she was, though. If I could find an advert for how many round trips she did, or what the sailing times were, that would sort it, but I haven't yet. ++Lar

• "The Columbus was one of the first ships to be fitted with an on-board radio, installed as early as 1909." Not sure that the "as early as" adds very much.

• I don't know when her radio was added. It has to be as early as 1909 but could be earlier. The cite I found was a 1909 book of callsigns, which -> she had one then. Maybe earlier, can't say. Ideas for a reword? ++Lar

• "Although she was used for excursions elsewhere around the Great Lakes, her regular schedule was a daily trip to Milwaukee, leaving Chicago mid-morning, sailing to Milwaukee for a two-hour stopover, and then returning (as the advertisement (pictured) illustrates). This brought a crowd of sightseers to Milwaukee every day." It seems self-evident that it would bring a crowd of sightseers to Milwaukee every day doesn't it? Perhaps I've misunderstood what's meant here.

• I think that was a hanger on to lead into a paragraph about how much carousing they did, I don't quite recall. :) I found some sort of memoir about rather festive/joyous brewery tours by aforementioned crowds of sightseers, IIRC, but it wasn't quite solid enough so I think maybe it got cut from an earlier draft. Perhaps that's just a hanger on phrase that needs to go too? Still 4000 passengers are quite a few to discharge every day. But I suspect she didn't routinely carry that many once she was out of fair service. ++Lar

I'm pleased to see this article at FAC, and I'm confident that I'll soon be able to support it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for some great comments so far. ++Lar: t/c 00:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)}}

Resolved issues from User:Dihydrogen Monoxide

Comments

• Maybe it's just me...but the infobox seems wider than usual. Not sure if shrinking the image is a good idea, but yeah...my ramblings. :)
  • Took the pic to 250, it now has whitespace on each side and the infobox doesn't seem any narrower... I agree it does seem a bit wide... anyone else want to try? ++Lar
    • Yeah, shrinking the pic won't shrink the infobox; the ship infobox is just that wide. I've restored the pic to 300px. TomTheHand (talk) 21:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• "She was the only whaleback ship ever built for passenger service." - the ever isn't necessary
  • Doesn't hurt. Given the number of things McDougall tried, the emphasis seems good. ++Lar
• Not sure what the deal is with the bold number in ref 1
  • No idea. it uses {{cite journal}}... any ideas anyone? ++Lar
    • Cite journal uses bold for the volume number, per consensus on its talk page. Maralia (talk) 03:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Aah, don't mind me then. :) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 07:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• "She was scrapped in 1936 by the Manitowoc Shipbuilding Company at Manitowoc, Wisconsin.[3][4][5]" - is this so contentious that it needs 3 refs? Best to avoid this (makes readability a bit worse) wherever possible
  • Is this against standard? Multiple refs seem harmless enough. ++Lar
    • Well, it is kinda against standard in that not many people do this. It just disrupts readability when you have (as occurs later in the article) 4 refs between 2 sentences. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 07:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I march to the beat of a different drummer, what can I say... I'll take a look and see where I can thin things out a bit, although I don't want to delete any refs outright, I'll just push them down or whatever. ++Lar: t/c 12:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Got that down to 2 I think. Better? ++Lar: t/c 01:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
          • Yeah, that's fine. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• "able to travel at a "high rate of speed".[9][10][11]" - same issue with 3 refs, and I think you could say this without quoting (again, not that it matters majorly...)
  • dequoted. ++Lar
• "Six Scotch boilers were then installed[13][15] and two triple-expansion steam engines" - this reads awkwardly with the 2 refs in the middle. A comma could fix it?
  • comma added. ++Lar
• "She was commissioned on 13 May 1893" - the first time I read this I thought it referred to the Columbian Whaleback Steamship Company...might want to use "the Columbus" instead of "she"
  • reordered preceding sentence to make antecedent clear. ++Lar
• "The Goodrich Transit Line steamer Virginia (later the USS Blue Ridge) is said to have raced against her." - who won?
  • They raced a lot over the years. Sometimes one, sometimes the other, won, it seems (ref the steam pipe explosion incident later in the article, I think SS Chris would have won that one). No idea how many times they raced the first year or which one won more often. ++Lar
• "by the Goodrich Transit Line,[22][23][24][25]" - ...you guessed my comment;)
  • Would it be bad form to put the multiple page references to the same book into one ref that lists several of them? I think that would get 3 of them collapsed to 1. ++Lar: t/c 12:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• "during a race with her rival, Virginia." - I think you should link Virginia the first time you mention it. Also, check the link; that one doesn't talk about a ship
  • It is linked up higher. Maybe not link it at all here? It's a long way away, thought the rule was first link per section? Fixed where link points. ++lar
    • Ah, I see, there are two in that section. Made first one linked (to correct target) and not section. The link earlier in a different section should stay too, I think, per linking standards. ++Lar: t/c 22:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I always feel like I don't know the rules on linking. Not a big deal - fixing the target was, though. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 07:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• "In 1915, after the SS Eastland disaster, in which the Eastland tipped over while docked in the Chicago River, with the loss of over 800 lives, the Columbus, along with other passenger ships, underwent stability testing" - very awkward sentence, especially the first part
  • Tried breaking this up and reorganizing, I agree it's a bit off, wording wise. We need to sort the multiple ref thing (I'm not convinced it's a bad thing necessarily) but I've done what I could about the rest... thanks for the input! ++Lar: t/c 22:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

A very nice article overall. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 06:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support per my stuff above. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: User:Dihydrogen Monoxide explicitly gave me/Lar permission to hide these resolved comments; see here. Maralia (talk) 04:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from TonyTheTiger (talk)

• The images in the Construction and initial operation at the Columbian Exposition should be moved to the left for high resolution viewers so that there is not lots of blank space even though the article will appear very short for a WP:FA.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 13:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm very open to moving images around but the problem with having them at left is that we then have some places (at some resolutions) where there are images on both sides of the text, which other reviewers have highlighted as an issue, which is why I went with the imagestack... anyone have ideas (if you look through comments above you'll see that image related comments are a common theme, there appears to be no solution that everyone likes) ++Lar: t/c 18:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Is this OK now? Maralia did a pass which I think looks good. ++Lar: t/c 22:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• May want to use {{double image}} or {{triple image}} to move gallery images into text.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 13:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Why is this better than regular gallery? tighter borders? Let me give it a try and see how it looks. Thanks for your feedback! ++Lar: t/c 18:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    • It is better in the sense that if the images are relevant and illustrate points described in the text, having them proximal to said text makes the article easier to read.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Now I see what you mean, because there are two images to the right of text towards the end, and that does look good! I thought you were just talking about redoing the gallery itself. ++Lar: t/c 22:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• Use {{city-state}} to make Duluth, Everett, Milwaukee and Manotowic separately linkable from the states they are in. I.E. Milwaukee, Wisconsin. That includes the infobox and the image captions.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Cool, I did not know about that template, nifty. ++Lar: t/c 04:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Think I got them all... LMK if I missed any! ++Lar: t/c 04:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
      • At least one (Manitowoc, Wisconsin )--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Think I got them all (again :) ), there were a lot hiding in various places, including cities without states, and in picture captions, etc. :) ++Lar: t/c 02:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
• Does GRT have a metric equivalent? in {{convert}}?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 04:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Tons in nautical usage are a funny thing... see Tonnage for more. I don't know that we know all the different values for her (GRT, NRT, GT, DWT, etc.)... Specifically GRT is a volume measurement (100 cubic feet or 2.83 cubic metres) but it's a calculated and not measured measurement. So I dunno. Maybe give the metric volume equvalent??? thoughts? What do other ship articles do here? ++Lar: t/c 04:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
    • GRT is really only reported for merchant ships, and there are few such FAs. The ones I've looked at do not attempt a conversion for this figure. It's not available in {{convert}}, probably because it's a tricky conversion - before 1982, it was a straightforward 1GRT=100 cubic feet, but now it's a calculation involving logarithms! Because this is an old ship, the 'easy' calculation applies, so I've added a conversion for 1,511 GRT -> 4,279 m³. Maralia (talk) 04:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I'll assume you got the conversion correct.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
• Is it possible to use the wikilink option in the {{convert}} for the first instance of each unit of measure (first in infobox and first in text).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• Done. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• It is not clear looking at the infobox why Goodrich Transit Co. is listed twice with no other owner between. Should there be an asterisk.
  • Probably. The data is from the BGSU ship registry, and Goodrich had multiple holding companies, HQ's etc, this was, near as I can tell, a legal ownership shuffle that didn't matter operationally. Either asterisk it, or smush the years together I guess... preference? Meanwhile, next edit run, I'll asterisk it... should that note go below the list of dates or all the way at the bottom of the box, or treat it like a footnote? (an earlier version of the article had refs in the infobox, but those were all removed (which is what caused the out of order ref numbering, actually, IIRC) during the GA process I think.)++Lar: t/c 18:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Sources indicate she was owned by Goodrich Transit Co. of Maine from 1909-1921, then by Goodrich Transit Co. of Delaware from 1921-1933. I don't think the distinction is particularly important; I would be happy to just describe that as Goodrich Transit Co. (1909-1933). Maralia (talk) 22:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
      • There is probably an interesting story in that ownership changes. When did Deleware become a buisiness friendly state? Was it about this time? Was there some risk that the company undertook at that time to make the change advantageous? See if you can find something. At the very least the text should retain this transfer detail that you found even if we can not find the reason immediately. I have no preference how the infobox is resolved.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
        • There probably is an interesting story, so I'd marginally favour keeping the ownership changes in this article. The larger question seems to apply to Goodrich Transit though, an article I started as a stub, rather than this one, unless a cite could be found. The best I could do was infer, (as I did about the previous ownership, which likely was a Goodrich shell, but I can't prove it) which of course, you have to be careful of not shading into OR territory... ++Lar: t/c 22:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
          • Most of this information is now in the text. I originally filled in the ownership part of the infobox only because the new ship infobox supported it. Perhaps the infobox could be shortened by limiting the ownership data to the text-- I surely have no strong feelings on the subject. Kablammo (talk) 22:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
            • The info box has merged the details out and I don't see Delaware anywhere in the text. Thus, potential information has been lost. Either put the information back in the infobox clearly stating the two different Goodriches or put the info in the text.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
              • Finally found an explicit source to clarify this: the Goodrich Transit Co., incorporated in Delaware in 1920, was a successor company to the Goodrich Transit Co. of Maine. As such, I think this is great information for the Goodrich article, but I don't see it having a place here; the ship belonged to the same company throughout, and the company did not even change names. The source is The Fitch Bond Book. The Fitch Publishing Company. 1921. p. 533. Retrieved 2008-03-26. Maralia (talk) 04:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
                • In this article you could say it was named by different incarnations of the Goodrich company which would tell people to look in the Goodrich article to find more detail.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 19:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
• I know you have been trying to make everyone happy with the images, but currently they are distributed 0/3/2/2 across the sections. Can we get one in the first section?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Doesn't the infobox take up the whole first section, or just about, meaning that an image would be in a squeeze text if it was on the right or funny if it was on the left? I do agree with the wish, though. ++Lar: t/c 04:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
    • The infobox end more or less coincides with the end of the first section; on widescreen, it doesn't even end until somewhere in the second paragraph of the second section. I can't see any way to add an image in the first section without it sandwiching text with the infobox. Maralia (talk) 04:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I don't know how this meshes with your other image issues, but most people have their preferences set so that their default image size for thumbs is tolerable on the left opposite an infobox. Try moving one image to the first section on the left without declaring an image size for the thumb unless it will lose support from other people taking issue with your images.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Just as an aside, most articles receive the majority of views from casual readers, not logged-in editors. The most important test for image placement, in my mind, is what the article looks like from the logged-out situation. Per my comment below, things looked good at that time; I don't know if any images have been moved subsequently, though. Risker (talk) 19:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
          • As I understand it the most common display setting is 1024x768. When I set my computer to this setting a few lines of the second paragraph of the first section oppose the infobox. I don't think squeezing would be bad if you put one image to the left of the second paragraph in the first section, but I am not sure what others think. Then we wouldn't have an imageless section followed by sections with 3, 2 and 2 images.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
• Do you use the Captain (nautical), ferry, promenade deck, schooner link in the article? It seems that either propulsion or propeller should be linked. In fact many terms in the third paragraph of the Construction and Columbian Exposition should be linked. Jackson Park should be linked on first usage, not later.
  • Capt/ferry/prom/schooner linked. Moved jackson park link to first. Not sure about which to link prop/prop :) (note that "propeller" was a term given to ships as a whole, back then, to contrast them with "sidewheeler" or "sternwheeler"... seems a rare usage now... that's just trivia for everyone's enjoyment) Any other links needed do you think? ++Lar: t/c 04:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
    • That paragraph has a lot of jargon that should be linked is there a nautical cabin article? panelling, etched glass and many other words might not be familiar to all international readers. You could probably link about a half dozen terms in that paragraph. Look closely.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 19:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I did see a bunch I COULD link but I'm concerned about over linking, so I did not. Perhaps others do think more are needed. ++Lar: t/c 02:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment

• The commons link belongs in the external links section.
  • John moved it. ++Lar
• The images would look better staggered left and right.
  • Excuse me while I die laughing. Look at an old revision, say, from before the FAC, that's how they used to be. :) ++Lar
• There shouldn't be text sandwiched between an image and an infobox.
  • White livery image moved to tail of construction stack to resolve this. ++Lar
• The format of the author names in the refs is inconsistent.
  • I think this is fixed, (John, Maralia, Kablammo, Sandy, et al, thanks guys) please check and advise which specific ones still have issues. ++Lar
• Some ref dates need linking.
  • I think this is fixed, (John, Maralia, Kablammo, Sandy, et al, thanks guys) please check and advise which specific ones still have issues. ++Lar
• Some measurements need non-breaking spaces or conversions. Epbr123 (talk) 18:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Example, please? thanks! ++Lar
    • This is now fixed. Epbr123 (talk) 10:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• Some refs are missing the author, publisher or publishing date.
  • I think this is fixed, (John, Maralia, Kablammo, Sandy, et al, thanks guys) please check and advise which specific ones still have issues. ++Lar
• There are some dead ref links. Epbr123 (talk) 22:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I could only find one this afternoon with the checker, fixed it ... (the Amships shiplist site, they keep reorganising that site)... any others? Please advise which, thanks ++Lar: t/c 01:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    • According to the checker, there are six others. Epbr123 (talk) 10:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Um, 3 of those are "moved temporarily" which is not an error, the cite itself works, and 3 are warnings, again, not an error, the cite itself works. All "error" links are fixed. ++Lar: t/c 12:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
        • If you follow the links, none appear to work. Epbr123 (talk) 14:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• Linkchecker comes up with 6 items. Three are NYT links which all work for me (and are flagged only for excessive redirects); one is a googlebooks link that works for me (and is flagged with the inexplicable 'changes searcher'). Of the six linkchecker links, only the two Chicago Public Library links are broken for me (returning 404 errors). Can anyone else recreate Epbr's experience of all six links not working, or confirm otherwise? Maralia (talk) 15:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I have been doing some work on footnotes which may have corrected some of these issues. See below. Kablammo (talk) 18:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The image in the external links section still has a dead link. Epbr123 (talk) 11:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Removed the CPL one. (when I get time I may try to find the CPL stuff using wayback or something, they had some interesting stuff, it's a shame that they reorged and it doesn't seem findable)... The WisHist link is fine. Anything else? ++Lar: t/c 12:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

You could if you wish link to the ship-wreck.com image page which has a lot of images, or cite it for the proposition that postcards are widely available. Just an option, if you want to use it. Kablammo (talk) 15:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment

I'm about ready to support this article now, if the problem with the images can just be sorted out. I've got no problem with a ribbon of images down the righthand side, instead of staggering them; I think that where there are a lot images that makes sense. But there are, I think, too many, causing a block of white space between the Expositon and Regular service sections, at least on my screen. Are the graphics of the triple-expansion engines and the printed pass really necessary do you think? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd be fine with a ribbon. See the talk. But we have editors calling for a reversion to right/left/right now. I do think the engine and the pass add a lot to the article. The engine was alleged by the source to be one of, if not the, biggest triple-ex ever to that time. The pass could go (to McDougall's bio, when I write it) I guess, but it adds a type of image not often seen in articles. ++Lar: t/c 03:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I've had a go at repositioning the images. There is no more sandwiching, and images are staggered right and left without impinging on section headers. I dropped two images: the ore dock pic that was in the gallery (because the image quality just wasn't up to par with the others) and the engines image (because I just couldn't create room for such a vertical picture). I also moved the detailed propulsion info out of the infobox and into the text of the Construction section. It's compliant with image guidelines now, I believe; Lar, can you live with it? Maralia (talk) 05:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• I will miss the engine, I think it's a big part of the story, but yes, I can live with any change that makes everyone else OK with the images. Thanks! Why not move images removed to the gallery at the bottom? The bridge image is not too key I guess. ++Lar: t/c 12:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support, now that the images issue has been resolved. Good luck with the nomination. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments and concerns of Kablammo (talk)

Source questions

Copied from article talk page. Kablammo (talk) 18:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC) Questions about footnotes: Introduction

• fn 2. does not seem to support the assertion about the vessel the longest laker when launched.fixed. Kablammo (talk) 12:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• fn 3-- dead link? (for its first use in article on # passengers carried, fn 2 will substitute.) formatting in footnote 3 fixed (two urls): fn 2 substituted Kablammo (talk) 13:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Background and proposal

• fn 6 does not appear to mention design was met with derision, etc. (fn 1 would work at least in part.) substituted, and additional ref added. Kablammo (talk) 12:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• Three sources were cited for "high speed" of vessel. I removed two as they did not appear to stand for that proposition. One footnote which does mention the speed still remains so the proposition is adequately cited. resolved. Kablammo (talk) 22:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• fn 10. dead link, or are search instructions needed?
  • Appears dead to me. Another site reorg, I guess. I will try to find this later today if I can. ++Lar: t/c 19:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I substituted the "Remember the Whaleback Steamers" fn as it supports it as well. Kablammo (talk) 23:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

(I'll look at other sections later . . .) done. Kablammo (talk) 22:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC) Kablammo (talk) 01:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC) New comments On dead links: In two footnotes (one of which was used three times, but now is only used once) there were two url= calls; one for the webpage cited, and one for the website of the publisher; this resulted in linking errors. Those have been fixed Remaining concerns:

• There is still at least one broken link.
• There are still some uncited propositions, or statements which the cited link does not support.
• There may be questions on the reliability of some of the sources-- enthusiast sites rather than more "scholarly" resources. That may simply be reflective of what is available.

Kablammo (talk) 18:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on "There are still some uncited propositions, or statements which the cited link does not support."? Presuming you don't mean the few you listed above (which are now struck as resolved), or the lingering issue of the dead link at footnote 10, I can't figure out to what you are referring. Maralia (talk) 22:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't tagged it but this phrase (in penultimate paragraph of SS_Christopher_Columbus#Construction_and_Columbian_Exposition) should have a source:

another publication dubbed her the "Queen of the Lakes".

There was one, but it didn't support it, so I removed it. I think that and footnote 10 are is my only remaining sourcing concern. Kablammo (talk) 22:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Lar, interesting fact:

This book is an account of ships that have borne the name "Queen of the Lakes," an honorary title indicating that, at the time of its launching, a ship is the longest on the Great Lakes.[1]

This book would a useful source, if anyone can get it at a local library. Kablammo (talk) 23:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Queen of the Lakes

The source for this that I used is a source referenced from within the problematic "bibliography" (The World's Columbian Exposition: A Centennial Bibliographic Guide - By David J. Bertuca, et al) source which we can't see online easily since it's a current book. Try this google search: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22christopher+columbus%22++%22queen+of+the+lakes%22&btnG=Search which yields among other returns, this chunk of text

The World's Columbian Exposition: A Centennial Bibliographic Guide - Google Books Result
by David J. Bertuca, Donald K. Hartman, Susan M. Neumeister - 1996 - History - 440 pages
"Queen of the Lakes: Trip of the New Whaleback Propeller Christopher Columbus From Superior to Chicago....The Finest Excursion Steamer in America. ... 
books.google.com/books?isbn=0313266441...

which goes to this Google Books page: http://books.google.com/books?id=F6cWRxU9go4C&pg=PA146&lpg=PA146&dq=%22christopher+columbus%22++%22queen+of+the+lakes%22&source=web&ots=aOAma8HxWe&sig=OJChMJEdloRHCIvtceDSpwzx19A&hl=en (the infamous page 146, which I can see but which other people, when given direct links to it, sometimes cannot, it varies, which is why I think we ditched it... Maralia suggested just making it a cite book instead of cite web but that's cheating I guess, I've never actually ponied up the 100 USD it would cost to get this book. ) and on that page, for source O226, (by their numbering) it says

"Queen of the Lakes: Trip of the New Whaleback Propeller Christopher Columbus From Superior to Chicago....The Finest Excursion Steamer in America." 'Seaboard 5 (May 25, 1893): 608-610

which I think supports the claim that "one publication dubbed her Queen of the Lakes" :) Wheeeee! ++Lar: t/c 23:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Lar-- I just discovered that myself! (I didn't read far enough down before-- my apologies.) Anyway, I think it looks good! Kablammo (talk) 23:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I broke it out as a separate ref using {{cite journal}} ++Lar: t/c 03:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

(I will cap this section later.)

Support. A worthy and interesting article. Kablammo (talk) 23:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Request

If people who have switched to support could do the collapsing box thing it would help show what's left to work on... I think we're getting there, aren't we? Thanks all for your help and comments so far. It was good when we started, but it's a far better article now than when we started the FAC, and that's the point, isn't it? :) ++Lar: t/c 03:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Support - I read this article when it first came to FAC, and thought it was pretty good but could use a few tweaks; I was just a little busy on a neighbouring page to comment then. All the tweaks I thought of at that time have now been taken care of. I've now looked at the image placement using three different screen sizes/resolutions and two different browsers, and they seem to be appropriately placed in all instances now. This is a well-done article, and speaks to the benefit of collaboration. Risker (talk) 16:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support - pretty much per Kablamo. Proportional amount of reliable sources, prose up to FAC standards, everything meets criteria. Good job. Rudget. 17:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comments. In the Construction and Columbian Exposition section, should the stated $360,000 also give a 2008 dollar equivalent? Also, Samuel F. Hodge & Co. should be Samuel F. Hodge & Company. Also, in the lead section the use of S.S. versus SS.--Brad (talk) 03:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from Bellhalla (talk) 17:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments — Just some minor points:

• "Background and proposal" section, 1st paragraph: Is there perhaps a better phrasing that would avoid the back-to-back McDougalls (which are a little jarring).
• "Construction and Columbian Exposition": 4th paragraph: The spacing between five and minutes looks a little funky . Is the non-breaking space between them needed since the number is spelled out? Also, the "downtown dock" referred to is in Chicago, right?
• Same section, 6th paragraph: Is it necessary to restate the distance of the trip two paragraphs after its first mention?
• Same paragraph: The Virginia was said to have raced on the maiden voyage, or while the Columbus was working the expo?
• "Regular service" section, 2nd paragraph: Can the advertisement be referenced without the nested parentheses?
• Same section, 3rd paragraph: Do the three accidents include the death of the crewman mentioned previously, or is that a different incident?

All-in-all a very good article on an unusual boat — Bellhalla (talk) 15:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• Rephrased to avoid "McDougall. McDougall"
• Dropped the hard space that presumably was added before the number was spelled out.
• No, it's not necessary to mention the distance twice. Thank you for pointing this out; I've been looking for a way to fix that overly long sentence :)
• I don't think Virginia raced her on her maiden voyage; think it's just a strangely placed sentence. Lar?
• Got rid of the nested parens by mentioning the advertisement image with (see advertisement right).
• No, the "three accidents" mentioned are the known accidents of the ship; we haven't found any detail on the single crewman's death during the exposition, and I hesitate to equate that unknown situation with the explicitly sourced explosion and two collisions. Maralia (talk) 16:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support - My concerns were addressed above. — Bellhalla (talk) 17:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Anthøny 18:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.