Talk:SS Edmund Fitzgerald/Archive 3

Was she sized for the Seaway max, the Soo Locks max or both?
One of the sources said it was the Soo locks max, and from the article it appears that one or more sources said it was for the Seaway (St. Lawrence), max. North8000 (talk) 00:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * That is a good question. Page 47 of 40th launch anniversary says the Fitzgerald was built for the Soo locks max but I think most sources report that it was built for the St. Lawrence Seaway max.  I will look through my sources and report back on it.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 03:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks like the two maximums were pretty similar back then.  Now the Soo has gotten bigger and the Seaway hasn't. It might come down to the fact that we are covering particular statements, and will need to word them as such. North8000 (talk) 13:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not likely that the Fitzgerald was built specifically for Soo Locks specs. The article source is probably in error.  The larger MacArthur Lock was built in 1943 in response to World War II.  The Poe Lock was rebuilt in 1968.  However, the St. Lawrence Seaway opened in 1959.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 14:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean. The MacArthur Lock is "only" 800 feet long by 80 feet wide.  Assuming that this is the southernmost lock, I have spent too much time watching ships go through it (like 50 hours).  The usable length is much shorter than the lock length (sort of defined by the little "cable in a drawbridge" things which protect the lock doors from ships) and so the listed limits could   be right for the MacArthur lock.   (?)    Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The MacArthur Lock was built in 1943. The Fitzgerald launched in 1958.  Prior to 1959, the Lakers were designed as bulk freighters and were limited to the Great Lakes.  According to Joachim in Iron Fleet:The Great Lakes in World War II, "...the canals round the Lachine, Solanges, and International Rapids on the St. Lawrence Seaway limited passage to vessels with a maximum length of 259 feet and a maximum draft of 14 feet.  As a result of these factors, new construction on the Great Lakes had traditionally been limited almost exclusively to vessels designed solely for the lakes."  (page 21)--Wpwatchdog (talk) 15:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm still not following. The info that you are giving points toward her being sized for the Soo Locks, but you opened with saying it probably wasn't. But if you know that we're OK, or know what we need to do, it doesn't matter how confused I am, we're set. :-)  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Title Case
Some editors possibly misunderstood what the title case requirement (see Archive 2) and title case itself is. (Or it's me who misunderstood something :-) )

You'll find the requirement under MOS:ALLCAPS. This is a recommendation against quoting all-caps text, including titles, in the original style. What's recommended instead is title case, which you'll find defined at Letter case (this is not a MoS but a normal article). So, for example, what appears as "GRAVEYARD OF THE LAKES" on the cover of Thompson 2000 should be rendered as "Graveyard of the Lakes". It is different from sentence case, which would be "Graveyard of the lakes" (and even that only if 'lakes' is a generic word, rather than a short form of Great Lakes, in which case title case and sentence case are identical for that book title). --Rontombontom (talk) 20:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know. I always capitalized titles as you have demonstrated above but I'm confused about the Wikipedia requirements.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 21:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * In pre-title-case-recommendation versions of the article, for example this, I find the NTSB accident report reference kept the ship name in all caps, while the subtitle of the NTSB report was rendered in sentence style. --Rontombontom (talk) 22:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Contentious specifications
Since at PR the discussion on this, too, became too long to maintain an overview, and it's good to mention here if someone can find further sources, I list what came up: Hope this helps. --Rontombontom (talk) 20:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Original deadweight tonnage: various sources give 26,000 tons (Thompson 1994, MacInnis 1998, 40th launch anniversary p. 6), 26,600 tons (Marine Historical Society), 26,660 tons (unreliable sources), 27,000 tons (40th launch anniversary p. 23). The first is now in the article, but it may be a downward rounded number in the sources used. --Rontombontom (talk) 20:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Final deadweight tonnage: two sources give an unspecified 30,000 tons plus (Thompson 1994 p. 164, 40th launch anniversary p. 23), now mentioned in the article as 4,000-ton increase in the "Increased load lines, reduced freeboard" section. Needs clarification of the specific number before adding to infobox and either the "Career" or the "Design and construction" section.
 * Cargo load on final voyage: an unambiguous 26,116 long tons in two sources (USCG and NTSB reports). This should be added in the "Final voyage and wreck" section.
 * Done.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 22:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Final net tonnage: an unambiguous 8,686 tons in four sources (USGC and NTSB reports without dating the changeover, Great Lakes Vessels DB and Marine Historical Society dating it to 1969, the latter identifying the installation of a bow thruster as reason). This should be added to the infobox and either the "Career" or the "Design and construction" section.
 * I took you literally (Net Tonnage which is different than Net Register Tonnage) and put it in and you reverted indicating that NRT was already in. That's cool, just mentioning. North8000 (talk) 21:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that... I forgot to look at correcting that when I entered the 8,686 number previously. IMHO the error is in the measures for the other tonnages. The USCG, NTSB, Great Lakes Vessels DB sources all use "Net Tons" resp. "Net Tonnage" for the 8,686 number, and "Gross Tons" resp. "Gross Tonnage" for the 13,632 number. For the 8,713 number, the Great Lakes Vessels DB again uses "Net Tonnage", so does the University of Detroit Mercy Fr. Edward J. Dowling, S.J. Marine Historical Collection. The Great Lakes bulk carriers book quoted downthread (here) also writes "13632 gt.". Only the Marine Historical Society, criticised upthread at the PR page by Wpwatchdog, uses "GRT" resp. "NRT". --Rontombontom (talk) 23:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Darn, things get more complicated... according to this, confusingly, GRT was "gross tons" in common US usage before international GT was adopted, which happened from 1969 until 1982... so GRT and NRT should probably be restored; I hope Wpwatchdog can clear this up. --Rontombontom (talk) 23:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that NT replaced NRT. And the deeper you look, the messier it gets.   Looks like some of these terms weren't truly standardized and varied with the eye of the beholder. North8000 (talk) 03:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, from the Wikipedia article and the linked document and some others I looked up, NT and GT according to the 1969 ITC agreement replaced NRT and GRT for new ships by 1982, and apparently for existing US ships by 1997. But the issue here seems to be the deviation of common US usage from these well-defined terms, with the source claiming that it was originally "gross tons" for GRT and "ITC tons" for GT, for example. I note that the NTSC and USCG reports predate even the changeover for newly built ships. Also, most sources add "t" to the "gross tons" resp. "net tons" number, which would be correct for GRT/NRT, whereas GT/NT are dimensionless. --Rontombontom (talk) 06:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This USCG page says about the ITC agreement: "Entry into force: 18 July 1982", "It applies to new ships in general from the date of entry into force" (that's 1982 -- e.g. doesn't apply to the Fitzgerald and shouldn't be in use by USCG in a report made in the seventies), "Existing ships, if not converted, were enabled to retain their existing tonnage for 12 years after entry into force" (that's 1994, e.g. it can't apply to the Fitzgerald). This page also uses "gross tonnage" in the context of two agreements coming into force before 1982. --Rontombontom (talk) 07:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I finally found a reliable source that gives a conclusive answer: USCG Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular No. 11-93, Change 3, page 4 (pdf page 6):
 * Later on page 5 (pdf page 7):
 * This confirms the generic use of "gross tonnage" in the US (or at least by USCG) as applicable to both GRT and GT. I will now edit the infobox back to GRT and NRT. --Rontombontom (talk) 07:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Now for a back-of-the-envelope calculation, 711.2x75.1x39 = 2,083,033.68 cubic feet. According to various pages, in the 10,000 GRT range, the difference in the GRT and GT value is about a factor of two. So which one is 13,632: GRT or GT? --Rontombontom (talk) 07:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Depth/draft: many sources give 39', two sources specify 33'4" (Thompson 1994 p. 164, Great Lakes Vessels DB). Recently added source says that freeboard reduced by "more than 39 inches", adding that to 33'4" gets us 36'7" Possibly two different specifications, clarification would be nice.
 * After seeing it in a bunch of places, it has become clear that depth and and draft are two very different things. Depth a a measure of the ship, and draft is how deep it sits in the water. North8000 (talk) 15:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It was unfortunate that the Great Lakes Vessels DB specifies 33'4" as "Vessel Depth", and that Thompson 1994 pairs the same with length overall. Fortunately, the new source I found and indicated downthread has both values, pairing 33'4" with waterline length, and specifying 39' as moulded depth. So since then I consider this one clarified, too :-) --Rontombontom (talk) 16:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Length between perpendiculars: one source says 711'2" (Great Lakes Vessels DB), a number of others say 711'. Doubts expressed over inch precision. At any rate, at least 711 ft should be added in the infobox.
 * It was unfortunate that the Great Lakes Vessels DB specifies 33'4" as "Vessel Depth", and that Thompson 1994 pairs the same with length overall. Fortunately, the new source I found and indicated downthread has both values, pairing 33'4" with waterline length, and specifying 39' as moulded depth. So since then I consider this one clarified, too :-) --Rontombontom (talk) 16:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Length between perpendiculars: one source says 711'2" (Great Lakes Vessels DB), a number of others say 711'. Doubts expressed over inch precision. At any rate, at least 711 ft should be added in the infobox.
 * I just found this. It gives the ship's dimensions as "711.2 x 75.1 x 33.4 (US) 729 oa. 39 md" (md = moulded depth?). Is that book known to the editors? --Rontombontom (talk) 21:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with this book but it looks comprehensive. I will do some more research and see what I can find.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 21:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thompson 1994 itself (as far as I can make out from what I can force Google books to show) seems to source loading data to this book: Namesakes of the Lakes by John Orville Greenwood (Freshwater Press, 1970). If any editor can get hold of a print copy, it looks like a good pre-sinking source. --Rontombontom (talk) 23:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Page 106 of Greenwood's Namesakes of the Lakes (1970) says, "O.A. Dimensions: 729'3" x 75' x 39'."--Wpwatchdog (talk) 16:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

An unexpected RL thing will have me down to 10% here for a couple days. Happy to do the number type insertions as I've been doing or else feel free. Maybe 1-2 more days to get this sorted out first would be good. North8000 (talk) 13:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

30,000 ft view of GRT/GT/NRT/NT/DWT
I know that this is an oversimplification, but probably a useful one. I think that it's becoming clear that GRT/GT/NRT/NT are not really descriptors or real data on the ship, they are something that exist and are defined only in the ever changing eyes and opinions of taxing, regulating and standardization bodies. These are abstract parameters and really not informative regarding the physicals of the ship. Since these are volumetric based, the load line changes probably didn't affect these. Further, some of these terms didn't exist or weren't used on the ship when it was floating. I'd say just make minimal mention of these, and, since they vary with the eye of the beholder, always in the context of the source, and then move on.

DWT is an actual useful and descriptive and non-abstract parameter of the ship, although it also varies a bit depending on how you look at it, (i.e. varies with the seasonal changes in load lines) and presumably underwent a large (~4,000 ton) change with the change of the load line. As such, it's probably worth trying to sort out and make sense out of DWT figures and cover them. North8000 (talk) 11:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * (added later)Actually it looks like only the winter load lines changed that much.  Long story short, that probably means that the DWT numbers we already have in there are probably good enough. North8000 (talk) 21:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I can agree to all of the above. For clarity, I didn't call for the addition of the GRT/NRT data to the text (it's the NRT-changing addition of the bow thruster that I thought warranted mention, which Wpwatchdog already saw to), but IMHO they should be stated in standard Infoboxes for comparison purposes. --Rontombontom (talk) 12:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

What's left regarding dimensions and tonnages
So I think that that resolves all of the questions regarding dimensions and tonnages except whether or not we want to put the 711' in there. I think that that is the "length between the perpendiculars at the waterline" or we possibly could abbreviate it to "waterline length" North8000 (talk) 21:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * According to the Length between perpendiculars and Waterline length articles, there is a difference between those, but you could be more economic with wikilinked acronyms/symbols like for the tonnages, e.g. "pp" and "oa".
 * I see that Wpwatchdog got access of Greenwood's Namesakes of the Lakes (1970). That one may or may not include more detailed information about the DWT/30,000 tons issue than what Thompson (1970) paraphrases from it, or at least maybe a more precise number for the Fitzgerald's load record, which may then be worth to add to the article. --Rontombontom (talk) 14:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Greenwood did not mention the Fitzgerald load record. The book has one page per ship that includes a few statistics about the ship's size, a photograph, and description of the ship's namesake.  Other sources indicate the load record was around 30,000 tons, but Stonehouse said, "Her single trip record load was 27,402 gross tons in 1969."  His footnote says the information is from the newspaper, Toledo Blade.  I think Stonehouse's figure is accurate.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 18:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * After some trickery with Google books, I could extract the following full sentence from Thompson 1994: "During a period of exceptionally high water levels in 1968, Fitz again went into the record books as the first ship to carry more than 30000 tons of iron ore through the Soo, a record she broke during the 1969 season with a load that totalled 30690 net tons [sic]." (The last figure is sourced to the 1981 edition of this book.) Assuming net tons actually means short tons, let's see what convert gives us: 30690 ST—bingo! (BTW, there was a typo in how you added it to the article, now corrected.) --Rontombontom (talk) 20:12, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing the typo. The above link takes me to Ladies of the Lake by James Clary (1994).  Do you mean Thompson's 1994 book, Queen of the Lakes?  I own that book and your above quote is correct.  Good catch on your part that he wrote the record load was 30,690 tons in 1969 which converts to the same figure that Stonehouse used.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 20:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I mean that Thompson's Queen of the Lakes of 1994 sources the 30,690 ton record to page 158 of the 1981 edition of James Clary's Ladies of the Lake. --Rontombontom (talk) 21:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Now I understand. Yes, it does source to Clary's book.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 22:08, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposal on infobox dimension additions/edits
After the 30,000-ton mystery cleared up and revealed itself as a long ton–short ton confusion by the authors of some sources, it is now clear that the ship's deadweight tonnage didn't change, hence its 33'4" draft and 711'2" length between perpendiculars remained the same, too.

Now, draft, length between perpendiculars and DWT seem to be somehow related, just as moulded depth, length overall and gross tons. What's more, in Template:Ship measurements (the navbar which appears at the bottom of these shipping terms definition articles), draft and moulded depth are both listed as types of depth. Also, in FA-rated ship articles I checked earlier, these different measures do often occur in infoboxes, sometimes written out sometimes as wikilinked acronyms. For the two depth measures, the standard symbols are the less obvious "D" and "d", "md" doesn't seem to be common. So I propose the following edit with spelled-out versions, and wikilinked for not being common (for the general audience that is):

...resulting in

Length:
 * 729 ft overall
 * 711 ft between perpendiculars

Depth:
 * 39 ft moulded depth
 * 33 ft draft

Except for draft, all in foot precision, because of the remaining uncertainty is the inch precision values. (We found different sources giving 75'1" for beam, 711'2" for length between perpendiculars, and 729'3" for overall length, but no individual source with all three of the above.) --Rontombontom (talk) 20:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good overall. But we should check sources on the 33 ft draft. To me it doesn't look right. Like maybe 33' is just depth measured a different way rather than draft. Going from memory, I thought the MacArthur lock was 29' draft max, and going from memory I thought that the drafts of the lakers were in the 20's.   Plus, depth minus freeboard = draft, and if depth is 39', and (going from memory) her freeboards were in the 11'-14' range, then that would put draft in the 20's.    Not that we should follow my muddled brain, this is just to ask that we be sure. Actually, draft might be a transient number on how she's floating in the water at the moment rather than a ship spec. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Draft (hull) is a different term than depth. I also doubt that the Fitzgerald's draft was 33 feet because she couldn't have locked at the Soo Locks at the time she was built.  MacInnis reported her draft at 27 feet (page 21).  Schumacher reported her draft at 25 feet (page 14).  Stonehouse (page 24) didn't give her draft but in reference to the period when the Fitzgerald was built, he wrote this, "Shipping is also restricted by lock and channel dimensions that hold the draft to about 26 feet and beam to 105 feet (for a 1,000-footer)."--Wpwatchdog (talk) 22:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The USCG report also details topsides in excess of 10 feet, so North8000 is right and this 33'4" seems to be a different depth measure... only, which. Three sources mention it, one along with the 39', without specifying. So for now, only length between perpendiculars is worth to add. --Rontombontom (talk) 23:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Draft is interesting, even if not a fixed number. What do y'all think about something like this in the info box:   Draft(typical) 27 feet (with conversion, plus a cite to Stonehouse) ? North8000 (talk) 12:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a sentence from the article: "The Fitzgerald was the first laker built to the maximum St Lawrence Seaway size which was 730 feet (222.5 m) long, 75 feet (22.9 m) wide, and 25 feet (7.6 m) deep." The citation on the Seaway dimensions is from the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority.  I think if we include the draft, it should be 25 feet.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 15:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll put Draft (typical) 25 ft (with conversion) in the info box. North8000 (talk) 21:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Short footnote template
A suggestion coming late: Template:Sfn provides for a simpler way to do short citations. It's shorter and you don't have to bother with named ref tags, as multiple citations to the same page number are identified automatically. (Its base method needs author name, but the Template:Sfn section shows how to do it for stuff like the NTSB report, too.) --Rontombontom (talk) 22:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the information. That will make future footnotes much easier.  Thank you too for all your close attention and help with the article.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 01:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, it won't work in a mixed way (as you are now attempting to use it): the sfn templates need the |ref= parameter of the corresponding full citations be set to "harv" (|ref=harv), which would conflict with existing short citations to the same full citation. So you'd have to re-do all or none—that's why I wrote a suggestion coming in late, sorry... --Rontombontom (talk) 19:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I wondered if I could use both methods. I'll go back and fix the citations I recently added.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 20:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry about not warning you in advance... --Rontombontom (talk) 21:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that one portion of "legal settlement" is confusing / does not communicate what it is trying to say"
Its this part:


 * Use of the Limitation Act in cases such as the sinking of the RMS Titanic and legal precedent from the Eastland and Bradley sinkings established that if the vessel owner and operators were not negligent or at fault, then the value of lost life would be based on the salvage value of the ship and compensation to survivors would be paid by the owner.[74] The Fitzgerald was valued at $24 million, and its financial loss was the greatest in Great Lakes sailing. A 26,116-ton taconite cargo was lost with it.[39] Author Robert Hemming reasoned that the USCG's conclusions "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."[75]

It kinds of blends value and salvage value, but I think that they are two very different things, and than one of them (that the salvage value is low) is a main point? Also "USCG's conclusions" is first introduced here, and the part relevant to this (not fully securing the hatch covers) is not mentioned. Also, I don't see it's point. Is it saying that compensation based on salvage value is comparatively high or low? And that it would be much higher if one of the companies was negligent?

If folks agree, I can work on the USCG part, but don't have the knowledge to work on the other part. North8000 (talk) 13:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * How about eliminating this section? Instead we could add a few sentences toward the end of the search section about the valuation and legal settlements without going into all of the other information.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 14:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Just brainstorming / talking rather than having the answer. If we can keep or summarize the key facts relevant to the Fitz in the I think that that it might be a good idea. There may be some that I don't know, but here are a few that come to mind:


 * US law/ courts had jurisdiction regarding liability
 * Whether or not the owner/operator was negligent is relevant to the settlement
 * The USCG report sort of blamed the crew for not fully securing the hatch cover clamps, which would tend to help the owner/operator in this respect


 * Sincerely North8000 (talk) 16:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * How about paring it down to something like this and putting it the second to last paragraph of the search section?
 * --Wpwatchdog (talk) 16:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The end of that is confusing to me. I guess  to start, should it be "neither" vs "either".  Then I could understand it.  :-) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The author used the word either. How does it look by replacing either with neither?  We could also paraphrase Hemming rather than use a quote.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Looks good.  Maybe should be "[n]either" so the non-parenthesis stuff accurately follow the quote? ?


 * I made the changes regarding the legal settlement. Please fix any problems you notice.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 21:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that the material is now pared to what's relevant to the Fitz, and what's in there is now clear. So the big improvement is done.  We might want to still think about the best place for it.   Sincerely,  23:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and move it if you think it will work better in another section.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 13:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll try that one new paragraph back as a "legal settlement" sub section and see what everyone thinks. I think that this will also (via the context of the subheading) resolve a concern of mine which has re-emerged with the change, which is the scope of the "governed by" statement. For example, as even shown in this article, the scope of the statement is not true; jurisdiction over visitng/exploring the wreck is under the laws of Canada. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Final voyage & wreck re-edit
As agreed on the Peer Review page, I re-edited the entire section with view to a better sourcing of wind speeds and a correct timeline. For the record and for future editors of the article, below I detail the main reasons for the changes that came up in the discussion at PR or later when I did the edit.


 * Maximum wind gust speeds observed by the Anderson: all sources harken back to oral testimonies by Captain Cooper of the Anderson. Schumacher, page 70, and MacInnis, page 50, Wolff, page 226, report "over 100 mph". However, Wolff, page 218, mentions another testimony with the figure of "70 to 75 knots". This figure also turns up in the NTSB report, page 11. So I chose to use the latter value, with double sourcing. I also cut the "hurricane-force" qualifier: that's not in the source, thus WP:OR, and incorrect, because hurricanes are defined by a wind speed scale for sustained winds, not gusts.
 * Maximum sustained wind speeds observed by the Anderson: one group of sources (Wolff, page 226, Schumacher, page 70, and MacInnis, page 50) report 69 mph resp. 60 knots, again based on Captain Cooper's oral testimony. Another group of sources (USCG report, p. 27, Thompson (2000), page 323) report 58 knots resp. 67 mph, based on the ship's logs. The NTSB report, p. 11, reports a third value, 52 knots. Based on the tentative language of the oral testimony, and being rather certain that the NTSB number is a typo, I chose the 58 knots number. There is another uncertainty, the time of the observation: the USCG and NTSB reports connect it to the 16:52 course change of the Anderson, while Thompson (2000) claims 4:20 p.m. I chose to trust the USCG, suspecting that Thompson's numbers come from there, too, and noting that the paragraph containing the 58 knots number starts with "At 1620, ...".
 * Maximum wave heights: I chose to add the maximum of logged normal wave heights and pair it with sustained winds, and indicate that the 35-foot wave is a rogue wave. Rogue wave is now wikilinked twice, but that's permissible per WP:REPEATLINK "where the later occurrence is a long way from the first".
 * Wind speeds prior to maximum: the prior version of the article contained two such numbers, the "more than 48 knots" for the NWS forecast upgrade from gale to storm warning and the 50 knot observed by unspecified observers on Lake Superior. The first was borderline WP:OR, but I could replace it with specific numbers from the USCG report. I changed the second to "over 50 knots", as a summary of wind speeds observed by the Anderson (58 knots at 1652, 50 knots at 1900) and the Stannard Rock Weather Station (50 knots at 1300, 56 knots at 1700). I also added the 52 knots reported by the Fitzgerald at 0100 and the 5 knots logged by the Anderson at 1350, for reasons discussed in the next point.
 * Wind shift: from the USCG report, the Fitz was battered by strong winds twice, first on the night from November 9–10, second in the late afternoon on November 10; with a lull in-between when the storm center passed over and wind directions changed. The prior version of the article conflated these two periods and mentioned the maximum wind speeds and wave heights before the events at 1530. So I moved the maximums to bottom (before the final para on the loss of contact), added the 0100 wind speed where the problems reported by the Fitz at the same time are mentioned, and added a sentence on the windshift, with USCG report sourcing.
 * Snow and reduced visibility: this was mentioned without specifying a time, and at the wrong time. As this happened when wind speeds picked up again, I moved it into the new para on the windshift, with additional USCG sourcing. I also added the IMHO significant detail that the Anderson lost visual contact of the Fitz at that time.
 * Course change to Canadian coast: this unsourced bit was also in the messed-up paragraph (after the November 10, 3 a.m. events, the maximum observed wind speeds and the snow). However, it pertains to November 9, so I moved it up two paragraphs, with USCG report sourcing. There was also a short unsourced sentence saying "Later, they would cross to Whitefish Bay to approach the locks", but as that's discussed already later, I cut it.
 * The speed of the ships: the original version contained "about 14 knots", and mentioned that the Fitz was faster than the Anderson without quantification. The USCG report allowed me to add specific numbers for both ships, albeit in mph (the report notes on p. 21 that statue miles/mph rather than nautical miles/knot was Great Lakes custom).
 * USCG warning to ships: this was rendered as a quote from the USCG report, but without an inline identification of the source. I changed to a paraphrase.

Final note: this time, I'm the editor and you're the reviewers; please check whether my re-ordering and additions disrupted the text flow at any point or if I left a typo, and copyedit where you see fit. --Rontombontom (talk) 10:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Nice!!  What a huge amount of excellent work!!!!    With such a huge amount of work there might be a little question/tweak or 2.


 * Would 35 ft. qualify as a rogue wave? The simulation said 1 in a 100 would be that big, one in 1000 45 ft.  Or would rogue wave be used only for shockingly much-larger-than-the-others waves?


 * Might call what the Anderson was doing for the Fitz at the end "help guide" vs (fully) "guide"


 * Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The 35 foot wave hitting the Anderson is mentioned as rogue wave in the Rogue wave theory section. I think the difference between this number and the simulation is that the simulation pertains to the location of the Fitzgerald: note that the simulated wind speed for the Fitz was higher than what the Anderson observed, too. --Rontombontom (talk) 11:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Rontombontom, thank you for your excellent work sorting out the confusion of all the different numbers used in the article. Your revisions read well and greatly improved that section of the article.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 14:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Seiche section wording (last paragraph in the "Shoaling" sub section)
WP, could you recheck what the source says regarding  "caused the lake to rise 3 feet (0.91 m) over the Soo Locks gates"? The lock gates are high, I think that this would mean the entire lock system would be submerged. North8000 (talk) 13:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Stonehouse quote, page 239:


 * November 11, 1975 Evening News quote about November 10:


 * --Wpwatchdog (talk) 23:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, we're good then.  It sounded like it might not be plausible, but looks like we're good.  Thanks for putting up with me on that and checking.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

"More similar to that of motorized barges" statement
(in the "Lack of watertight bulkheads" section) This is a very judgemental statement. I think that this was a quote; I think that it would have to be a quote in order to stay in, otherwise it would be considered to be OR and POV. It might as a quote be in an older version of the article, I'd be happy to look later but am just noting it at the moment. North8000 (talk) 13:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I started checking. Late December we had it in as "motorized super barges" with quote marks and no cite.   Early November it was not in. North8000 (talk) 14:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It was a Stonehouse phrase. I'm not sure if he used the word "super".  I will look it up and make it direct quote.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 15:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I revised the section with two quotations from Stonehouse. Now I noticed the following sentence is also POV:


 * "After the Fitzgerald foundered, Great Lakes shipping companies were accused of valuing cargo payloads more than human life."


 * This was another Stonehouse opinion. I think I can back it up with other citations.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 16:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Roughly speaking, if it's somebody else's opinion and covered in a wp:rs, that's OK. An opinioncreated by me or you or a wp: editor is not OK. North8000 (talk) 16:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Looks good! North8000 (talk) 17:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I closed out peer review
I closed out the peer review per talk on the peer review page. Reiterating what was said there, thank you to our reviewers for the extensive amount of expert work ! ! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Nominate for FA soon?
I can nominate this for FA as soon as we think we're ready. Speaking for only myself, the only loose end that I know of is double checking that seiche height item as noted above. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * So that is now done.  I don't think that we have any known open items at the moment.  I'm drafting the intro to put it up for FA and if there are no objections I'll probably put it up for FA within a day.  North8000 (talk) 12:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I think we're good to go. Thank you for moving it along.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 14:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I nominated the Mighty Fitz's article for Featured Article
I nominated the Mighty Fitz's article for Featured Article. The review page for it is here []

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Commenting here pre-emptively
Someone is bound to comment on this while the article is at FAC, so I'll repeat my suggestion. You have two different date formats at work in the references. For full dates, you have the "ISO-style" of YYY-MM-DD, but for month and year only dates, you have Month YYYY. My personal recommendation would be to convert all dates to Month (DD,) YYYY or even (DD) Month YYYY. There are a few magazine issue dates of the form Month1/Month2, which is wrong per the MOS. That should be an en dash (–) not a slash (/) in use.
 * On your format statement, I'm not following. It appeared that you gave two different cases (where the day was and wasn't available) and said that the format was inconsistent between them, but that is talkign about two different types of data.   Could you clarify? Thanks North8000 (talk) 03:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There is currently things like "Retrieved 2011-02-20" in fn 9 and "1975-11-11" for fn 153. Compare that to "July/August 2005" (which should be "July–August 2005") which can't be denoted in the ISO-style date format of the previous two examples. (Or if it can, it's not in a "human-friendly" format. ISO format itself isn't very reader friendly, and the usage in citations dates back to when the templates all used the date auto-formatting by linking the dates. That linking/formatting has been shut off by default.) In the Nuytten reference, you have "December 2005", which would be 2005-12 in ISO, and "Retrieved 2010-11-03", which is ISO. Personally, I'd say that it is a lot friendlier on our readers to use a date format that's more familiar to them. You're not really saving space using the ISO style, but you do risk confusing readers. The difference between 1 March 2011 and March 1, 2011 is very minor, but not all readers would get 2001-03-01 even though 03/01/2001 or 01/03/2011 variants are familiar. That's my $0.02 on it.  Imzadi 1979  →   04:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This issue came up in an article I edit myself and I looked up past discussion on the matter. Turns out there was a big dust-up resulting in a formal RfC vote, in which the majority voted against disallowing ISO date format for day-precision dates in references, with saving space among the frequent arguments. "2010-10" is not ISO format, nor was something like that supported by anyone in the discussion, nor did anyone call for something like that for consistency. So I think this should be up to the editors and not be an obstacle to FAC. If the editors follow your consistency/readability argument and would choose to abandon the ISO format dates, I note per MOS that they should choose "March 1, 2011", because that's the American format that's topical and already used in the article (1 March 2011 is British format). --Rontombontom (talk) 14:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think we're talking about about 20 40 dates here, so length downside is small.   IMO probably a good move, even if not required for FA. I think that I have competed it for those in the references section.  Now to do it for those in the notes section. North8000 (talk) 14:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that it is done for all references. Dates in edit summaries are actual copy+paste from before and after dates in the article for checking purposes. North8000 (talk) 16:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Another thought, but I'm personally wondering if all books should be moved to References section, even if only used once, for consistency. I did notice that one source,  The St. Lawrence Seaway: Fifty Years and Counting, has a location of "Manotick, ON, Canada". You've spelled out Michigan in all of the references, but abbreviated Ontario, and added the country. I think that unabbreviating "Ontario" and dropping "Canada" shoudl be sufficient, as well as consistent with the American location usages. I'd double check that any papers that were printed in either Sault Ste. Marie indicate which city is their origin. (Yes, an exception to not listing a city if included in the paper's name, but necessary here, I think.)
 * WPwatchdog and all.  I kind of like the "all books moved to the references section" idea, and would be happy to do it.  What do you think? North8000 (talk) 03:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This is bigger decision than I thought.  We should noodle on it. North8000 (talk) 15:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There are about 38 references that are only in the "notes" section. This would be a pretty big change. North8000 (talk) 12:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Footnote 113, if not needed, should be removed. The publisher (Great Lakes Radio Consortium/Michigan-Sportmans.com) may not stand up to the scrutiny as a "high quality reliable source" needed for a Featured Article. Also, be aware, any sentence that has three footnotes on it usually gets looks at as being unreliable.


 * It looks a little light, and is used only once, as one in a triplet of cites. Taking it out would resolve both. I'll take it out.  I looked at it.  It is the source of the quote. Neither of the three cites is heavy duty, but all three support it.  Not sure what to do with this.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you paraphrase the information to avoid the direct quotation? That way the citation can be pulled. I'm concerned that the source might not be "high-quality" in comparison to the other two, and a triple would invite unneeded scrutiny.  Imzadi 1979  →   04:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Footnote 227 italicizes a publisher (Canoe, Inc) name. It shouldn't. Footnote 236 should list Traverse City, Michigan as the location. (One of my best friends lived in the same building as their offices.)
 * 227 is fixed. North8000 (talk) 03:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

In the References section, "Thunder Bay Press, USA" is not a location. On that same entry, you're getting a double period on the publisher. The Mark Johnson news item is published by WEWS-TV. That would be a better, and more specific publisher to use. Do you have a page number on the Eric Lawrence source? The Nuytten article should list its page numbers. They're printed on the PDF referenced. The ISSN for that magazine is 0706-5132 as well. I found that ISSN in 60 seconds by searching for the magazine's name on http://www.worldcat.org. If you can locate ISBNs, OCLCs or ISSNs for every source possible, that would be great. (Yeah, not technically required, but still a great idea if you can.)  Imzadi 1979  →   02:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. BTW, we thought that we had addressed every suggestion received.  I think we lost track and missed your date format one. Sincerely,  North8000 (talk) 03:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I'm hopeful that the article passes.  Imzadi 1979  →   04:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Imzadi1979, thank you once again for steering us toward correct formatting and citations. I will work on the above suggested corrections within a few days unless someone fixes them first.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 13:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * WP, so I think that means that all of these are OK with with you. I'll do some work on them too.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Hold depth
Someone corrected depth to hold depth in the infobox. That is certainly wrong: one of the sources I dug up above clearly indicated the 39' dimension as moulded depth. However, could the mysterious 33'4" measure be the hold depth? If so, both should be added. --Rontombontom (talk) 14:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I also had a concern. Here is an earlier thread moved from the "Nominate for FA soon?" section


 * In the infobox what is the measurement listed for "depth"? The "depth" field is for submarine use. Brad (talk) 00:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for asking. We had some substantial discussions/investigations on it. Both what was in sources using that term and also the technical definition(s) of the term.  There is some variability on the fine points in the "official" definitions, but they are all similar. Generally it is the vertical measurement from the bottom of the keel to the weather/spar deck in the center area of the ship.   Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That would be depth of hold and I changed the field accordingly. Also changed class= to type=. Brad (talk) 01:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe that it is considered an external dimension. Used in some ship structural engineering work, such as the L/D slenderness ratio (ratio of length to depth) North8000 (talk) 01:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * From what I found (below), you appear to be right: (moulded) depth as defined by the source below is an external measure, depth of hold is an internal one. --Rontombontom (talk) 21:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, I think that "hold" refers to (just) the cargo area. North8000 (talk) 16:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In all of my ship dealings I've never heard of a moulded depth. There is the ship's draft which is depth of keel and depth of hold which is from top deck to waterline. Using the "depth" field gives the impression the ship is 39 ft below water. Either way this needs to be clarified somehow. Brad (talk) 18:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. I hope you can help in that if I sum up the controversy. The problem was that various sources give either 33'4" or 39' as the ship's "depth". Of the two, 39' appears to be the sum of topside and draft as given in various sources. There is one single source I found and quoted upthread which gives both values for the ship, in this form (quoted verbatim):
 * Note that the source also gives two length measurements: 729' is confirmed by other sources as length overall while 711'2" is confirmed by other sources as length over perpendiculars. So, (1) was I wrong to assume that "md" stands for moulded depth, (2) does the pairing of 33'4" with length over perpendiculars give you any hint as to what 33'4" is? --Rontombontom (talk) 20:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding the term "moulded depth": it turns up on several pages with ship data, as well as Hull (watercraft) (where it is mentioned as synonym of simply "depth"). I'm particularly intrigued by sources giving both "moulded depth" and "depth of hold" dimensions for the same ship, for example this, this or this; with "moulded depth" always greater than "depth of hold". I'm still trying to find a source that defines both terms. --Rontombontom (talk) 20:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Found one in an e-book version of Thomas Henry Watson: Naval architecture: a manual on laying-off iron, steel, and composite vessels (1898):
 * As indicated, there is an illustration (page 5). According to the cross section in the USCG and NTSB reports, the Fitz had big ballast tanks, that would explain the difference. --Rontombontom (talk) 20:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I made myself a copy of Fig. (4) on page 12 (pdf page 24) of the USCG report, which shows the ship's cross section. I rotated it, and magnified slightly so that breadth is 750 pixels, so 10 pixels = 1 foot.
 * Distance from bottom to the lowest point of the underside of the deck stringer plate: 389 pixels—that's 39' within the error margin, check.
 * Distance from the bottom to the top of the cargo hold at the centerline: if I chose the correct line for the top, 332 pixels, that's 33'2.4".
 * So it does appear to me that 39' "md" and 33'4" refer to the measures as defined by that book. --Rontombontom (talk) 21:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Distance from bottom to the lowest point of the underside of the deck stringer plate: 389 pixels—that's 39' within the error margin, check.
 * Distance from the bottom to the top of the cargo hold at the centerline: if I chose the correct line for the top, 332 pixels, that's 33'2.4".
 * So it does appear to me that 39' "md" and 33'4" refer to the measures as defined by that book. --Rontombontom (talk) 21:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Read more: http://www.brighthub.com/engineering/marine/articles/26220.aspx#ixzz1FNynN1aw


 * And it appears the simply "depth" has a technical meaning which may be noneof the above. "between the undersides of the deck amidship to the bottom of the keel.  But that is probably irrelevant. It matters what term the best sourc(es) used foir the number that they gave.  North8000 (talk) 21:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * So, does that leave us with this for the article (or as close to that as the template will let us go ?


 * Moulded depth: 39 ft.
 * Depth of hold: 33.4 ft.


 * North8000 (talk) 21:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, all but the one source with both numbers, which specified "md", just wrote "depth", so we have to figure it out. Regarding your source, either it plagiarises the Wikipedia article (complete with diagram!) or the other way... --Rontombontom (talk) 21:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia article's source is the International Convention on Tonnage Measurement of Ships, 1969. It, too, contains a definition of moulded depth, a long one for all kinds of special cases, but the basic one is the same as in the 1898 book: "The moulded depth is the vertical distance measured from the top of the keel to the underside of the upper deck at side." No other depth is defined. --Rontombontom (talk) 21:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, to answer your added question: based on the above, I do think that in the depth parameter in the infobox is moulded depth, which is 39 ft, and depth of hold ("hold depth" parameter in the infobox) is 33 ft 4 in. -Rontombontom (talk) 22:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * From the look of things mentioned above I believe the solution to be:
 * Ship depth=39 ft (moulded)
 * Ship hold depth=33.4 ft
 * My biggest concern was the confusing 'depth' entry where a reader might think the ship is under 39' of water after the sinking. Adding (moulded) after the 'depth' measurement should clarify this. Brad (talk) 22:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I have no particular feeling towards my proposal, I was just trying to distill and propose conclusion out of our discussion. North8000 (talk) 22:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * A note on 33.4 ft vs. 33 ft 4 in: my one source doesn't say foot, in fact doesn't give any unit, I think it was sloppy there. Two other sources (Thompson 1994 page 164, Great Lakes DB) give 33'4" (foot-inch). In parallel, 711'2" turns up in other sources, too. Otherwise, I'm entirely okay with Brad's proposal. --Rontombontom (talk) 22:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * After a short search: not sloppy, it's apparently a convention in some technical writing; see f.e. here, or here: "A decimal point is used to separate the foot and inch units." --Rontombontom (talk) 22:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me North8000 (talk) 23:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, I added it in that form, with sources; and also the length over perpendiculars. There is one more formatting issue: according to WikiProject Ships/Guidelines, "Bullet points should never be used in infoboxes. If it is necessary to create a list of items within an infobox, for example, a list of a ship's weapons, the items should be separated using the code " " (not including the quotation marks)." However, this guideline doesn't appear to be an official Wikipedia guideline, so I'm not sure if it should be followed. --Rontombontom (talk) 07:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Quotations
In the "Final voyage and wreck" section, I noticed that the source of the Wolff (1979) quote about the 3:30 p.m. radio conversation (inserted to repace a paraphrase after a PR comment of mine) was not identified in the text. However, on one hand, it wasn't something to be identified as POV, on the other hand, it appeared as something likely originating in the USCG report. It was indeed there, with slightly differing details, but significantly differing importance: the USCG report notes that "None of the officers on ANDERSON who heard this conversation felt that it indicated any real concern about the welfare of FITZGERALD." Then in the next paragraph, the details on when and why McSorley anounced that he will slow down differed from what was in the USCG report, so I edited that too. In the paraphrase, I replaced the specialised expression "checked down" with slowed down for the general audience (even the USCG report felt the need to explain it).
 * I started into what I thought will be a minor copyedit fix regarding another radio conversation, the inquiry about the state of the Whitefish Point light and radio beacon. Then I saw that this part remained partly unsourced, and in other parts didn't fit the details in the sourcing. Furthermore, the details of who told what and when are dispersed between the USCG and NTSB reports (with the former mentioning what the latter details with a laconic "was observed"), which I first had to piece together to source the unsourced parts. Worse yet, there was a McSorley quote from the NTSB report that wasn't the actual quote but a paraphrase, and the NTSB version of the quote included parts which were then quoted again, but in a different wording, from Wolff (1979). So I ended up fixing this all in a rather substantial edit. If Wolff (1979) is more detailed on these points than the two official accident reports, based on original sources, then edit it again. --Rontombontom (talk) 15:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

There is another quotation that I am in doubt about. After the PR closed, two quotations were added to the "Lack of watertight bulkheads" section. The second of these, IMHO, would add colour to a news article, but is too much colour and veers a bit off topic in its detail in an encyclopedia article. I suggest either a paraphrase (something like "He contrasted the Fitzgerald fate with that of an ocean-going vessel that reached safe haven with a major hull damage thanks to its watertight bulkheads."), or leaving it off completely (IMHO the point is clear from the first quote).
 * Those quotations actually came about as a scaling back of what wp:editors had written in that area. It started with me expressing concern that the statement (saying that the lakers were like motorized barges) seemed a little POV and OR for article text. WPwatchdog addressed my concern by switching to sourced quotes. I suppose that the way to avoid both issues is to just write a basic lower key summary on that point and remove the quotes. North8000 (talk) 14:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I saw that in the Discussion. But while the first quote expanded on the claim and identified the POV, and "motorized super barge" was re-added mid-sentence (as expression rather than a full sentence quote, but I assumed Wpwatchdog did find it), the second quotation IMHO added more than necessary. --Rontombontom (talk) 15:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

A third point about newly added quotations: when an entire sentence of the source is quoted mid-sentence in the text, the first letter should lose its capitalisation as per the last "Allowable typographical changes" rule in MOS:QUOTE. --Rontombontom (talk) 14:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I fixed all of these myself, with the exception of the "weather permitting" sentence (see FAC discussion on the necessity to edit that one). --Rontombontom (talk) 16:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

As the issue of generalising specialised shipping/Great Lakes shipping terms came up earlier, I quote another relevant guideline, from Manual of Style (linking), which is less permissive than I remembered:

I also noticed wikilinks within quotations (there was one added for "list" in the quotation I just converted into a paraphrase)—here the guideline says: "Items within quotations should not generally be linked; instead, consider placing the relevant links in the surrounding text or in the 'See also' section of the article." I think the "See also" option is not relevant here, but the other could be a possibility. --Rontombontom (talk) 14:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Notes on making changes
For those who haven't noticed, nobody here has any mental baggage of any type here, we are just 100% fixated on make the article as good as possible, getting FA, and then being FA of the day on November 10th (hopefully 2011). So, please join in that same spirit, and don't worry about any people-type issues when making edits.

Conversely, at this stage, we are at a point where the article has been through a lot and is currently FA nominated when changes can accidentally create new issues, so us checking each other or putting our heads together prior to bigger changes is probably a good idea. North8000 (talk) 14:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Ditto to what North8000 says here.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 22:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: this is FAC, not PR, so quick reaction is essential. I'll try to help out in the references stuff later today. Of the critiques of the opposed reviewer (who wasn't too specific but doesn't have to to deliver an Oppose), I dealt with hyphens/dashes, the misplaced "again", and numbers below 10 that aren't measurements. --Rontombontom (talk) 06:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * WP, reinforcing what Ronto said on the "quick action".   You've been the human dynamo on the sourcing, and came with / have have the most print sources.  Can you jump on some of those detailed source question, most of them in Fife's comments? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Weather permitting/hatch clamps
One substantial edit suggested by the FAC review concerns the part on fastening the hatch fastening clamps, which should result in the elimination of the "weather permitting" phrase which proved confusing for too many readers. At the FAC review page, I suggested that as a first step, a longer quote from Wolff (1979) p. 228 could help the writing of a good paraphrase.

However, if an even more substantial edit with new sources will be required (as suggested by North8000), I'd propose that two passages in the NTSB report be part of it. One is on page 7: a description of the clamps. There were 68 clamps per hatch, that's 1428 altogether, indeed a lot of time to fasten them all. The other is on page 29: the justification of the recommendation to fasten all clamps, with a critique of prevailing assumptions: "...Great Lake masters believe the weight of the hatch cover alone, about 14,000 pounds, would make the hatch cover weathertight. Calculations indicate more than 178,000 pounds is required." --Rontombontom (talk) 16:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * If you have an idea, I'd just run with it. Today my available time is like 3 minutes at a time, that about all of the depth that I can muster today ! :-)   North8000 (talk) 19:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Moving on this requires a check of the printed source first. --Rontombontom (talk) 12:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I see Wpwatchdog replaced the direct quote with a paraphrase, but I think that's not enough to resolve the problem.
 * The question is: what exactly takes ""a day or more"? Is that the time the ship's crew needs to set the clamps left unlocked on-board while a storm is closing in, or is that the time it would have taken to set all of the clamps in port (thus delaying departure, and even more if weather is bad)? That's an important difference, and this is not clear from the quote itself, but it should be clear from the context of the quote. Wpwatchdog, could you check the passage again and perhaps post here in Discussion a longer quote than what was in the article, that is a sentence and two before or after the key passage (as far as relevant), to keep for the record? --Rontombontom (talk) 18:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Interpreting action items from comments
There are some comments where I think that the implied action is clear to folks specialized in the area of the comment, but which might take time and investigation for me or WP to learn out what issue is implied. Can anybody figure out the action item on these:? North8000 (talk) 13:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I intend to get down to look at the more complicated citation issues in about three hours. --Rontombontom (talk) 13:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I began, but then my web connection suddenly died, and didn't return until this morning. --Rontombontom (talk) 10:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Where "corporate source" was the comment
I asked this on the nomination page. North8000 (talk) 20:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It has been answered there. North8000 (talk) 23:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Lost-time accident
In the last paragraph in the career section it says: The Fitzgerald received a safety award in 1969 for operating eight years without a lost-time accident. Trying to figure out which way to go on FAC feedback on this.

WP, could you check the source and see:


 * Is it "accident" or "incident" Trying to see if the term used in the one with a complex legal/regulatory  definition.
 * Who issued the award?

Thanks!! North8000 (talk) 03:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I extracted the original sentence after some tricksery with Google books:
 * So it's acciddent, and the awarder is not specified. In the Google books version, Thompson has no citation for the safety award that could be followed back. --Rontombontom (talk) 10:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So it's acciddent, and the awarder is not specified. In the Google books version, Thompson has no citation for the safety award that could be followed back. --Rontombontom (talk) 10:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks! North8000 (talk) 10:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Long story short I explored & thought about several possibilities to response to the FAC comment saying this term is unexplained. (internal link, trying to summarize the legal meaning or explain the common-in-the-US meaning. With this additional info, it looks like and can and should do a brief explanatory expansion on the wording. North8000 (talk) 10:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I say wait for Wpwatchdog on that, maybe he has more in other books or is familiar with the "loss-time accident" term. (I assumed it means an accident forcing the ship to stop or force the loading of the ship to stop, and thus lose time for the company.) --Rontombontom (talk) 11:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I checked the term Lost Time Accident (LTA): it is defined here as "An LTA is an incident which results in absence from work beyond the day or shift when it occurred." Also note: Lost time accident redirects to Occupational injury. So the time lost is not the ship's, but the workers'. This allows for a paraphrase. Maybe the paraphrase could spare the mention of the award and just say no serious injury. --Rontombontom (talk) 11:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * (Edit conflict, this responds only to your previous post) I already did it before reading this. Of course, no problem to change. It's a very common term in the US, (I'm very familiar with it) particularly in industrial and worker safety circles.  Nearly every factory has a sign up on how long they have gone without a lost time accident. Both the precise and loose uses of the term derive from something which has a detailed legal/regulatory definition. Roughly speaking, it is an accident serious enough to cause a worker to be off work.  My questions related more to the thought process for the particular issue in this article.  Thanks again.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks again.  Don't hesitate to change it if you feel so inclined!   North8000 (talk) 11:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thompson was the only source I ran across that said the Fitzgerald got a safety award. I put that in the article to give balance for the allegations that the company was operating her with hull problems.  Lost-time accident flew right over my head because I too am very familiar with this phrase.  Thank you for neatly resolving the issue.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 13:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Life belt
One citation to repair gave me lots of thought: the one revealing the life belt found recently as a fake. It was a cite news, which has "newspaper" (alternatively: journal, magazine, work) as obligatory parameter. However, the cited article was one released by AP, an agency, and hosted at The Free Library, a website. I even asked a question at Template talk:Cite news, where putting AP in the "work" field was recommended. The issue of files hosted by someone else than the original publisher came up in an article I edit myself earlier, so, following the solution there (and also the "Sault Symphony Orchestra via PRWeb" formulation in another citation of this article), I put "Associated Press via The Free Library" into the "work" parameter.

Meanwhile, I noted that the sentence the citation is for mentions AP as if the non-originality were its POV. Checking the source, the confirmation is not AP's, but the owner's. But I edited the sentence even more: I thought the fact that it was not a hoax but another (even if only personal) object of rememberance for the Fitz was an on-topic detail worth to mention. --Rontombontom (talk) 11:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Hidden open question
My note may make it look like Fife's


 * Another corporate author? ""Marine Board Casualty Report…"

comment is closed out there, but it isn't.  Does anybody know if the open vs competed"  If completed, can you mark it?   North8000 (talk) 03:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The rules are on the FAC main page ("Supporting and opposing"). I quoted the rule against strikethrough from there. It is the reviewer's duty to check whether what you have done is satisfactory and to mark it, within a few days. If you mark it yourself, even with a Done mark, it can be seen as an attempt to prejudge his/her judgement (I have seen that in other FAC nominations). --Rontombontom (talk) 09:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * On the action item: I think it was solved by Wpwatchdog by making the USCG the author. One could argue that the author is USCG's "Marine Board of Investigation" (cover resp. page 1/pdf page 13), however, the report also contains text written by a USCG Commandant, and the "Performing Organiation Name and Address" field on the Technical Report Standard Title Page (pdf page 2) contains simply "U.S. Coast Guard".
 * A belated special note on the USCG report citation. I copyedited its title before the FAC nomination, because it included the organisation name from the top of the cover. However, I also noticed that the makers of the report committed a mistake: on the cover, the title is "MARINE CASUALTY REPORT / SS EDMUND FITZGERALD; SINKING IN LAKE SUPERIOR ON 10 NOVEMBER 1975 WITH LOSS OF LIFE". However, on the Technical Report Standard Title Page (next page), in the "Title and Subtitle" field, there is "Marine Board Casualty Report / SS EDMUND FITZGERALD Sinking in Lake Superior on 10 November 1975 With Loss of Life". I assumed the correctness of the latter. --Rontombontom (talk) 09:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for both. On the "marking" that is not what I meant; and I should have made myself clearer. I just meant that on all of the others, we put in text which reported the work completed, and on this one we didn't.  North8000 (talk) 10:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Pantry
I forgot to note this for the record after my connection returned: wikilinking pantry was my copyedit 'crime', sorry about it. English not being my first language showed here: I thought "storeroom" is used normally to denote the room for foodstuff next to the kitchen, and that "pantry" is some more exotic/obscure version; but having checked I see it's in wide use even in Britain (where they also have larder). --Rontombontom (talk) 09:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, for that, you get "fifty lashes with a wet noodle"   :-)   Now. if you understand the meaning of that one, I'm even more amazed.   :-)   Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Duplicate sources on illegal dive 1
Currently, the article includes the following sources on the original illegal dive accusation from March 2005:

The second of these is an action item, so I checked it. The article is not archived on the Detroit News site, and although I found the dead link, archive.org doesn't have a copy. A copy with incomplete details can be found at Boatnerd. The Sault Star citation actually links to a copy posted in an UnderwaterTimes.com discussion board, which is not a reliable sourcing, and unfortunately The Sault Star didn't archive it; furthermore, the article is obviously a longer reproduction of the same AP wire as in the Detroit News/Boatnerd source, but Mr. Bellerose 'forgot' to credit AP.

Looking for a better sourcing, I found no surviving copy of the AP news wire in any media, however, I found two with copies at archive.org:

The Detroit Free Press copy correctly credits AP, no author; the CDNN source however omits to credit AP and gives "CSM" as source (Christian Science Magazine?). The text of these two versions is almost identical. They are longer than the Detroit News/Boatnerd version, but compared to The Sault Star/UnderwaterTimes.com version, the last six paragraphs are missing—paragraphs which contain passages putting the director of the accused Great Lakes Shipwreck Historical Society in a slightly different light. The Farnquist quote therein however can also be found in the 1995 Orlando Sentinel article used as source for the 1995 Tysall/Zee dives.

Based on all of the above, I propose that both of the present two citations (The Sault Star/UnderwaterTimes.com and Detroit News) be dropped, and the Detroit Free Press source be used instead. --Rontombontom (talk) 19:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Bellerose of the Sault Star was the original author. He filed the report with AP.  Since he was the original author, shouldn't he get the credit?  The Sault Star online archives don't go back to 2005. Notice the dates: the Sault Star article was March 15 and the Detroit News was March 17.  Should we use the Sault Star citation instead  and eliminate the Underwater Times link.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 02:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding the dates, note: I proposed to drop the Detroit News sourcing, and a switch to the above Detroit Free Press sourcing, which is also dated March 15. Now the question is, how do you know that Bellerose filed the report with AP? If you base that on more than the date, then yes you should use the Sault Star citation (with link eliminated), possibly with the Detroit Free Press one added so that readers can check a version on-line. --Rontombontom (talk) 08:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The story was picked up throughout Michigan:
 * Bellerose's article was printed March 15, 2005 in the Sault Star, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario. His first sentence was, "The Ontario Ministry of Culture is reviewing...".
 * The Detroit Free Press picked up the AP report on March 15, 2005 at 7:28 p.m. starting the article with "Sault Ste. Marie, Ont. (AP) - "The Ontario Ministry of Culture is reviewing...".
 * The Evening News, Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan carried the article on March 16, 2005 starting the article with "Sault Ste. Marie, Ont. (AP)- The Ontario Ministry of Culture is reviewing...".
 * The Flint Journal carried the article on March 16, 2005 as credited to the Associated Press and started the article as "Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario - The Ontario Ministry of Culture is reviewing...".
 * The Mining Journal picked up the story on March 16, 2005, starting the article with "Sault Ste. Marie, Ont. (AP) - The Ontario Ministry of Culture is reviewing...".
 * The Detroit News carried the story on March 17, 2005 and credited it to the AP but did not give the location. The first sentence was "The Ontario Ministry of Culture is reviewing...".
 * The article is not readily available for free on online newspaper archives but I have hard copies of the above. I think we are safe using the Sault Star and Detroit Free Press as citations as you propose in your last entry.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 16:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification, your emphasis on Sault Ste. Marie, Ont. in the AP credit line and 7:28 p.m. convinced me. --Rontombontom (talk) 18:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Duplicate sources on illegal dive 2
Reporter Mike Simonson's claim that Farnquist admitted to an illegal dive and that the Ontario Ministry of Culture warned him is in the article as a POV claim, with three sources:

The first of these is again a discussion board copy taken from another site, that of a radio report transscript, and the (dead and not on archive.org) link redirects to the site of the third source. The second source gives Mike Simonson as author, too, and although produced for a different small radio station a month earlier, it is similar enough to be redundant.

Now, I don't think Mike Simonson's POV on what Farnquist admitted and on what the ministry told him is of significance, as there was no controversy about such an issue widely reported in reliable sources. What should count is whether his reports are themselves reliable sources for claims about the matter. And here I have my doubts. First, the level of editorial control at these local radio stations is doubtful. Second, having read the versions of the (reliable) March 2005 AP wire, I found Farnquist is quoted claiming:

That is an admission of doing something in 2002, but an express denial of diving. Checking Phil Nuytten's December 2005 Diver Magazine article, he, too, tells only of rumours about illegal dives and doesn't recount the 2002 episode. Then there is a second problem: the key passage you are quoting is not in the actual radio broadcast clip in the third source. Was it removed after complaints? Or 'added' only to the transscripts? Either way, the real news of both reports was the ministry spokesman reinforcing that they are negative on dives to the site.

Based on the above, I think as a minimum, only the second or third source should be kept, and the sentence should be re-written to be about the ministry's opposition to dives at the site only, without any Mike Simonson POV framing. The alternative is to find other, better sources. (It is quote possible that the Ministry said even a sonar scan disturbs the watery grave.) --Rontombontom (talk) 19:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * "'Before, a sport diver could dive the wreck without a permit, but expeditions needed one,' said Farnquist of the Whitefish Point museum. 'Now nobody can dive the wreck without a permit. You can't even tow a sonar by it anymore.'" quoted from
 * I have access to archives of the Detroit News back to 1999 and the Grand Rapids Press back to 2000 through my library here. I can supply anyone with copies of full articles if they wish.  Imzadi 1979  →   20:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for that! Having found a copy on-line, I see Farnquist is referring to "a new amendment to Ontario's provincial Heritage Act"; the same 2005 amendment is mentioned in the article, with another November 2005 article as source, which says it was in preparation at the time. Hence, there is no contradiction with Farnquist's March 2005 claim that his 2002 sonar expedition did not need a license.
 * With this established, I strongly recommend the removal of the Mike Simonson quote as an unreliable source contradicted by reliable sources. The above Detroit News source Imzadi1979 uncovered may be worth to add as extra source for the law change.
 * By the way, Imzadi1979, if you have that archive, could you check the March 17, 2005 article I discussed above in "Duplicate sources on illegal dive 1"? (That's the single one remaining action item from the FAC review, as far as I can see.) --Rontombontom (talk) 21:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That article is not in the archive. Are we sure it's from the Detroit News and not some other paper? They could have just left that article out of the archives, since if I browse that date for the paper, I can't be getting the full text of the whole paper.  Imzadi 1979  →   21:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah. Well, it's no big problem: I already suggested the alternative sourcing to the Detroit Free Press. --Rontombontom (talk) 21:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks!  Whatever you are recommending in these two, I'm cool with.  I couldn't tell exactly what that is well enough to just jump in and do it. Maybe WP can, being deeper in on the sources. Sincerely,   North8000 (talk) 01:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I have a March 15, 2005 Sault Star newspaper with Bellerose's full report, "Group claims illegal dive made to Edmund Fitzgerald site."  The article does include Farnquist's statement, "We dragged side-scan sonar past the wreckage from a distance of about 800 feet ... it isn't categorized as a dive."--Wpwatchdog (talk) 02:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Ontario Heritage Act
Right after I wrote above that the source for the illegal dive claim is the only remaining action item, I realised there is the Ontario Heritage Act amendment sourcing, too. In my reading the reviewer's problem was that the citation for the quote was to a news article rather than the actual law text. The source you can use is an official Canadian government law site, the 2005 amendment is on-line here.

Also, you could add more on the Ontario Heritage Act: after the 2009 amendment (see consolidated version), I see the sonar ban was reinforced, allowing for a ban by regulation beyond the 500 metre limit. A "regulation" is apparently something issued by the "Lieutenant Governor in Council" (see end of the law); the questions regulated include the designation of the actual shipwrecks for which the rules apply (the law doesn't name the Fitz).

Correcting my earlier guess, I note that the Ontario Heritage Amendment Act of 2005 was assented to on April 28, 2005—so what was under preparation in November the same year was the connected government regulation. --Rontombontom (talk) 22:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Note #113 links to the Ontario Heritage Act at Canada's e-laws. Was the reviewer suggesting that the Act should be cited with a different method?--Wpwatchdog (talk) 03:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * On second thought, that's not clear from his question, so let's hope he clarifies. However, I also realise that #113 is a link to the 2009 consolidated version, and it is no useful source on what was in the pre-2005 version of the law. At any rate, the inconsistencies of the current version of the section need to be dealt with and get a better sourcing.
 * To consolidate my own proposals for a better understanding, with some revisions after checking the sources again, and added legal sources, I am thinking of something like this:




 * Hope that helps. --Rontombontom (talk) 08:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that is much better. The following was included in Bellerose's article and I believe was carried over in the 2005 AP reports:




 * When the word "dive" was used interchangeably with survey, that caused confusion. I believe the Ontario Ministry of Culture Heritage Division interpreted side-scan surveys as general surveys in 2005 and now they have tightened up the regulating language.  Rontombontom, it looks like you have sorted out which citations to use.  Would you mind editing that section with your above paragraph?  I think you are also correct that the title section should be revised to "Restrictions to surveys".  Thank you for ongoing excellent scrutiny and attention to detail that has really improved the article.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 15:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding "survey" and what I think of the legal change: first, unfortunately, I can't say what was in the law as valid at the time of the side scans, because the earliest version I found was the text of the November 2002 amendment (still after the scan). In that version, there is no special consideration for underwater as opposed to surface sites, and what's regulated is lit. "archeological fieldwork" and altering the sites (e.g. it would apply to the removal of the ship's bell). So IMHO the key uncertainty of the pre-2005 version was not the mode of the survey, but the question of what constitutes being "on archaeological sites". The April 2005 amendment was clearly a reaction to the side scan controversy. (The GLSHS towed their sonar at a distance of 800 feet = 250 m, the amendment provides for protection zones with a radius at least twice as long.) However, we can't tell if the motivation was a feeling that GLSHS exploited legal loopholes, or just a willingness to respond to the protests of relatives by expanding the ban; and there is no source allowing us to make an explicit connection, beyond the expunged paragraph of the Mike Simonson report with its unclear language.
 * Regarding the cite edit, I can get to work on that once I have Template:Cite canlaw completely figured out. But before inserting it into the article, I would also like to get confirmation on two things: that you have evidence beyond the date that Bellerose was the author of the AP wire (see my reply in "Duplicate sources on illegal dive 2"), and whether Imzadi1979 thinks my reasoning for the use of pairs of primary/secondary sources is sound.
 * By the way, an additional problem: the link of the Toledo Blade source seems to have turned into a dead link (I could swear it was there a week or two ago). --Rontombontom (talk) 16:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The link to the Toledo Blade was definitely functional when I added it as a citation. Unfortunately, I did not print out a hard copy of the article.  Instead of trying to find the exact statute at the time of "illegal dive" report, how about using the above quotation from Bellerose and the AP reports that said an archaeological license was required for general surveys and then go on to cite the revised law as you already proposed?--Wpwatchdog (talk) 17:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the Bellerose quotation is in the present tense (present for March 2005). The 2002 amendment didn't add the license requirement, only changed its details, so I think only the most general paraphrase of both sources is justified, one that may cover all versions of the law. I now changed the above draft to "activities on registered archeological sites require a license", is that okay with you? --Rontombontom (talk) 18:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that works.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 19:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding the Toledo Blade, fortunately, I found an archive.org copy, and now added it in the article. Soon I will add the edited "Restrictions to surveys" section to the article. I'm not sure that the format I have chosen for the legal citations is the best, so change if you have an idea to make it more in style with other citations; and I will ask the FAC citation reviewer to judge it when reporting the edit there. --Rontombontom (talk) 19:00, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find a template for citing Canadian provincial law. Can the province be added to Template:Cite canlaw for our use?--Wpwatchdog (talk) 19:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Template:Cite canlaw says it can be used for provincial laws. However, I refrained from using the template because it has bugs and style problems: it displays a "" at the end of the template if there is no Wikipedia article by the name of the law, the whole Wikipedia link to law style is unlike other citation templates in the article, and it doesn't include an accessdate parameter. So I went for a citation without template and wikilink, but mostly in the style of that Cite canlaw. I will soon write the note on this at the FAC review page.
 * In the passage as now inserted in the article, you'll note that I included "watery graves" again. The quote is credited by the Toledo Blade to "Guy Lepage, of Canada's Ministry of Culture"—I checked, he is from the Communications Branch of the Ontario's Ministry of Culture. --Rontombontom (talk) 19:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Rontombontom, nice find of the Toledo Blade archive and very nice editing of the entire section. Thank you.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 21:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Just a note, but FAC reviewers can get suspicious if a sentence needs more than one or two footnotes to support its content. Where you have a press source, I would prefer that over a link to the law, which would be a primary source. Is the law citation bad? No, but a secondary source is viewed more favorably. As a second point, make sure you're using American English spellings, so "meter", not "metre" since that's the form the article is using, even if the source is Canadian. (She was an American-flagged boat, so American English is appropriate even if she lies in Canadian waters now.)  Imzadi 1979  →   10:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Added sp=us to the convert template. --Rontombontom (talk) 12:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Nice work, looks good to me. BTW, the unresolved question that immediately popped to my mind under  the old version and which remains in the new one is that, as worded in the article, if a boat passes over the wreckage, they get a $1,000,000 fine.  North8000 (talk) 12:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * With all of those links that you provided, I was able to learn it.  I think we replace "entry into" with "Conducting any of those activities"  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Put that into the draft above. --Rontombontom (talk) 12:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way, the section title should then also change from "Restrictions to dives" to something broader, i.e. "Restrictions to surveys". --Rontombontom (talk) 13:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Regarding the primary and secondary sources and multiple sourcing, there was something I forgot to mention. I originally thought that the "'watery graves'... comparable to cordoned off cemeteries" quotation in the current version of the article is from the law, and thought Fifelfoo's note was on that. Then I found that the quote was not from the law and Wpwatchdog made me see that Fifelfoo was addressing another citation. In my above proposal, the law is paraphrased, where WP:PRIMARY applies, which states: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." The law sources contain some details not in the articles (above all: its date), hence the choice of one primary + one secondary sourcing. Do you think that could prove contentious? --Rontombontom (talk) 12:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * This falls on the edge of summarization and interpretation and I think needs to be classified as summarization. Otherwise nothing could be written that would use the law as a source except a quotation from the law. North8000 (talk) 13:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Endorsements from reviewers 'too involved'
I saw that GA reviewer Imzadi1979 and PR reviewer Brad101 helped out in the FAC recommended copyedits/citation fixing, too, but didn't post a Support or Comment at the FAC review page. Is that because you plan to do it later, or because you view your editorial involvement as too close for your vote to count? If the latter, do you think I who got even more involved should change my Support into a Comment or something? (I also ask for future reference as a less experienced reviewer.) --Rontombontom (talk) 12:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * To me this whole area is kind of hazy. Including whether or not the process just wants reviews/reviewers here vs. people who say "support" and "oppose" after reading everything and possibly making a comment or 2.  The link in the template to the page just says "leave comments". Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I only comment on FACs if actually review the article, which I have not at any level of this article's progress at either GAN or FAC. I've taken an interest in the article, but I wouldn't consider myself involved enough to make any declarations. I typically only review articles at FAC when I have a nomination open, which I won't for the short term. Brockway Mountain Drive is headed to FAC soon, but only after I get a copy of a rare book on the road from either the Clarke Historical Library at CMU or the Library of Michigan. While I'm confident that the article is ready now, I don't want to find out that there is additional information in that book that would be beneficial to the article. I've had a "comprehensive" article fail at FAC because a reviewer wanted 19th century history for a road that's only existed since 1926 (US 41) but pass the second time around after digging up some old information on a portion of the road.
 * As to the question of what FAC wants, it needs two things. It needs reviewers to review articles against the criteria, even if only one criterion in the list is reviewed. (Image reviews come to mind. Source reviews are another.) It also needs reviewers to make declarations of support or opposition. Fifteen reviewers could comment on an article, and all have positive comments, and the article will fail if none of them declare support. Articles will only be promoted when there is consensus to promote based on the discussion, and the delegates know that all of the criteria have been checked. (They will not promote an article if no image review has been done, for instance.) So, to answer the question, FAC as a process needs both reviews/reviewers and declarations. If someone has been involved with the article at some stage of its development, the delegates need to know that so that they can weigh that in determining consensus.  Imzadi 1979  →   14:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! North8000 (talk) 14:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The main reason I dropped out of the PR and haven't as yet commented on the current FAC is the storm of editing this article has been through. Changes were being made faster than I could review the article or make comments. It's not unusual for a FAC to go on for up to a month or a bit longer. Brad (talk) 03:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Of course, at the PR and FAC reviews the flurry of edits was trying to be responsive to the large amount of great feedback and suggestions received. We'll see what's next at FAC.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)