Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mary Celeste/archive1


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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC).

Mary Celeste

 * Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 00:00, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Almost everyone has heard of the famous "ghost ship", found abandoned and deserted in mid Atlantic, although many think her first name was "Marie". Many other "facts" about her are also false, inventions that have been handed down and incorporated into the legend. There were no fires burning in the galley, no half-eaten meals in the cabins, or coffee still warm. The unadorned truth, however,  is fascinating enough in its own right, and no one has yet found a solution to the mystery that satisfies everyone. Among the many suggestions of varying plausibility that have been put forward are mutiny, piracy, giant squid, waterspouts and aliens in flying saucers. I touch briefly on all of these theories, and others besides. Much praise to the sturdy and patient peer reviewers, who suggestions have (mostly) been cheerfully adopted. Brianboulton (talk) 00:00, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Support—had my say at the peer review. Meets the FA standards in my view, a really fine piece of work I thoroughly enjoyed looking over. Well done Brian. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  00:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your peer review, kind words and support. Brianboulton (talk) 22:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Support – Another peer reviewer, quibbles thoroughly attended to at that stage. Very happy to support now. Meets all the FA criteria, in my opinion (and is utterly intriguing into the bargain).  Tim riley  talk    07:39, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I wish I could have provided an irrefutable solution; that would have made me, and Wikipedia, famous. But alas, the mystery remains. But many thanks to you for your PR efforts and for your support here. Brianboulton (talk) 22:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Support Had my say at the PR as well, looks good. Meets the criteria thoroughly.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, too. Brianboulton (talk) 22:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately I missed the PR. Some minor things:


 * Is it intentional to link New York State instead of city? If so it should probably be New York City and delinked.
 * Can you point me to where this link occurs? Brianboulton (talk) 22:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * First one, in the lede.♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, found and fixed. Brianboulton (talk) 21:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * "by a local consortium of nine" -would "nine people" be better here?
 * Agreed. Brianboulton (talk) 22:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * "Early in 1872, the ship underwent a major refit" -where was this?
 * It was in New York. I thought that having said the ship was bought by a New York consortium, this was sufficiently implicit. Brianboulton (talk) 22:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * "a Christian and as an intelligent and active shipmaster" -is the full quote really essential here? Especially as you already stated he was a Christian and it doesn't seem to have anything to do with progressing in his profession. Perhaps paraphrase or "described by Fay as an "intelligent and active shipmaster""
 * It was actually Fay reporting someone else's view of Briggs, but the exact wording is not really necessary. I've cut the quote, and left it that Briggs had achieved a high standing within his profession. Brianboulton (talk) 22:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * "Benjamin took command of Mary Celeste for what would be her first voyage after her extensive New York refit," -when?
 * In October 1872, when he made his investment as reported in the previous section. I have clarified this. Brianboulton (talk) 22:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * ""Benjamin thinks that we have got a pretty peaceable set this time all round, if they continue as they have begun"" -peacable is repeated again, not sure how encyclopedic this quote is. I'd probably paraphrase.
 * I have part-paraphrased the quote, and got rid of the repetition. Brianboulton (talk) 22:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Correct the link to New York Harbor
 * I'd probably let Hoboken, New Jersey show, like you did with the one in Maine as I wouldn't know where it was.
 * Both the above done.


 * You linked Gibraltar in the lede but not it seems in the first instance in the article.
 * I've linked it here now. Brianboulton (talk) 22:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what MoS says on the matter but it might be useful to add an actual link to 38.33333°N, -17.25°W so people can look on wikiatlas/externally on google maps. As the reader I'd want to know where it is. If you think it looks unsightly in the text perhaps a footnote.
 * In my earliest days as a FA-writer I was told not to link coordinates in this way, since this meant introducing external links into the text. I do see your point, but so I've added "midway between the Azores and the coast of Portugal" to the position of the discovery of Marie Celeste. The location of her abandonment is already given as "off Santa Maria Island in the Azores". This information will hopefully satisfy curious readers. Brianboulton (talk) 22:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * "In 1925 the historian John Gilbert Lockhart surmised that Briggs, in a fit of a religious mania, had slaughtered all on board and then killed himself." -not clear to me why he'd do that, I don't follow why that would be religious killing people when most, especially Christianity denounce it! I don't think you need to change anything here as he withdrew it later, but it does seem an odd claim!
 * I think the clue is in the word "mania". Lockhart toyed with the idea that Briggs's religious convictions had turned to loss of reason and violent madness. It was hardly a tenable theory, and he wisely withdrew it and apologised for even suggsting it. Brianboulton (talk) 22:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Link New York World, New York Herald Tribune and Geological Survey of Canada?
 * Linked. Brianboulton (talk) 22:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Aren't octopus and squid different?
 * Well, they're both cephalopods, both have eight tentacles, blue blood etc. People tend to get them confused, though squid can grow much larger. The Chambers Journal article refers to a giant octopus, but other sources refer to squid. I have hedged with "octopus or squid". Brianboulton (talk) 22:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * "The Mary Celeste story inspired two well-received radio plays in the 1930s,[133][134] and a stage play in 1949.[135] Several novels have been published, generally offering natural rather than fantastic explanations." -I think you really need to be more specific here and cite some examples and their authors for reference purposes.
 * I have added the playwrights to the text. Full publication details of three novels are included in f/n 13.


 * " Spencer's Island, Nova Scotia" at bottom of legacy, overlink or intentional?
 * Overlink, sorry. Brianboulton (talk) 22:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Isn't gibraltar-stamps.com a commercial site? Is it the official Gibraltar Post Office? Also it says (Source Wikipedia)... I think there's a way to source it with a Stanley Gibbons catalogue and be a bit more specific. It might be good to elaborate a little on it, nothing too much though, perhaps ask somebody at the WP:Philately project to look into it.
 * I have deleted the Gibraltar Philatelic Bureau as a source. All the information concerning stamps is covered by the Begg reference alongside it, so we don't need it.  Brianboulton (talk) 22:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for these comments, a kind of belated peer review for which I am most grateful. I've accommodated your wishes as far as possible; in a few cases I think first thoughts were best and I've left well alone. Brianboulton (talk) 22:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Support That's OK, most of them seem to have been of some use, obviously it's just nitpicking at this stage! A thoroughly enjoyable read, clearly meets all FA criteria. Reminds me of a documentary I saw once on the Bermuda Triangle and a ship found like that. Excellent job!♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Squeamish Ossifrage
A few minor quibbles over reference formatting, because it's FAC, and where would we be without those? "Austin's report is reproduced in full on Appendix O" should probably be "in Appendix O" (alternatively, I like the shorter form of citation 117 to the more verbose 54/55/65/66, but that's entirely within editorial discretion). Some web sources (UCL News, New Zealand Herald, DalNews, perhaps others) are missing retrieval dates. The UCL News source lacks author attribution (Adrian Lee). Is The Independent on Sunday correctly styled (as opposed to simply being the Sunday edition oif The Independent)? The Dal News reference is not properly formatted. I agree with Dr. Blofeld that you can do better as a citation for the Gilbratar stamps than a commercial site (Gibbons or Scott catalogues, at the least). In the source list, Fay and Fanthorpe need their order switched to be alphabetical. It's probably within editorial discretion, but you could probably drop the explanatory note on the Fay source by including |edition=Revised and |origyear=1942, if desired.

None of these are significant problems, and all should be easily corrected. Meanwhile, thank you for satisfying my personal referencing pet peeve by providing correctly hypenated ISBN-13s for all sources which possess them. Prose has been reviewed by people with more skill at copy-editing than I, and I don't see anything that stands out as problematic. Images seem well-chosen and properly licesnsed. I'm pleased to support. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:29, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for these most useful comments. I have very largely dealt with them as you suggest. I have deleted the Gibraltar Philately Bureau citation as unnecessary – the information is entirely covered by the Begg reference alongside it. I have kept the explanatory note relating to the Fay book edition, as it's more informative (gives publisher details) than the additional template parameters. Brianboulton (talk) 23:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks really good. Last tweak I noticed on a second pass: The UCL News reference has "UCL News (University College, London)" as the publisher. Compare to the DalNews source, with |work=DalNews and only the university as publisher. I'd suggest doing the same for the University College source. And with that ... well, I was already supporting promotion. But I'll support more; nicely done. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have standardised the UCL News and DalNews ref. formats, in a slightly different form taking into account the comment of PS Burton later in this review. Does your review here amount to a sources review for FAC purposes? If so, can you clarify this for the benefit of the coordinators? Brianboulton (talk) 22:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The current approach still doesn't italicize UCL News. I'm trying to decide the ideal way to present this. One option might be the via field and appropriate use of formatting., your thoughts on this?
 * As for a "source review" in the FAC sense, I had not done so, but have now taken the time to perform several spotchecks, none of which revealed problems with plagiarization or close paraphrasing. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. I think that would be even better. The Daily Express Archive indicates that the article was published on pages 44–45, so that might be worth adding as well. But the current style in the article is also quite alright, I therefore think this matter could be left to the nominator's discretion. P. S. Burton  (talk)  17:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, when we say "source review" we generally mean for reliability and formatting, and when we say "spotcheck" we mean verifying accurate use of the source while avoiding close paraphrasing -- sounds like Squeamish Ossifrage has done a bit of both, which is great. Re. formatting, Brian, the only queries I have are whether it mightn't be an idea to qualify in the references where Harlow is, and to spell out North Carolina. Ian Rose (talk) 23:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Re above note (from coordinator Ian I think): I have clarified Harlow and spelt out North Carolina. Brianboulton (talk) 09:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes it was, tks -- back captured my signature for posterity... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes it was, tks -- back captured my signature for posterity... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Support – I've always been interested in this story and I'm so pleased that you have chosen to bring the article up to this kind of quality. My second FAC read of the day with no issues to report.  Cassianto Talk   19:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Support I was another happy punter at PR, and I'm glad to see that this article's in much better shape than the ship ever seemed to be! Great article. - SchroCat (talk) 09:32, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * My hearty thanks to the above pair, staunch comrades both, for their encouragement and support. Brianboulton (talk) 23:26, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment – In the reference "Lee, Adrian (May 20, 2006). "Solved: The Mystery of the Mary Celeste". UCL News (University College, London)" it should be made clear that University College is not the source, and merely hosts an excerpt of an article published in the Daily Express by the journalist Adrian Lee. As the source is given now it looks as if the text was written by someone employed at the university rather than the newspaper. P. S. Burton (talk)  19:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, the formatting of this reference has been raised elsewhere and is under review. Brianboulton (talk) 21:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have adjusted the reference, to clarify that the original source is an article in the Daily Express. I can't cite directly to the Express as I have not seen the actual article. I don't think it's quite right to say that UCL News "merely hosts an excerpt of an article". It has chosen to reproduce this expert, which highlights the work of one of the University's staff; however, I think the situation is clear as it is now shown. Brianboulton (talk) 22:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok. I am satisfied with the new wording. P. S. Burton  (talk)  07:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Image review
 * File:Mary Celeste as Amazon in 1861.jpg - Don't see 1861 anywhere in the source.
 * I have added confirmation of the year to the image page. Brianboulton (talk) 02:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * File:Villageview.jpg - Massively downsampled, but that's my only complaint. The user's uploads of photographs taken by himself are all using the same camera, so not concerned about possible copyvios.
 * File:George McCord - New York Harbor.jpg - Date? Where's this scan from?
 * Unfortunately, the uploader did not say where he scanned the image from. I have added this to the image page, which confirms title, author and medium but not the date. I have not been able to locate this date from any online source. We know McCord's dates, and therefore that the painting is at least 106 years old. Brianboulton (talk) 02:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * File:Rock of Gibraltar 1810.jpg - Looks okay.
 * File:Trombe.jpg - Fine
 * File:Arthur Conan Doyle by Herbert Rose Barraud 1893.jpg - Bonham's source should not just be cited in the upload history, but in the information template itself.
 * Done


 * File:Gonave.jpg - Source link is dead. (Probably worth a separately-uploaded crop, for the article)
 * I'm not sure where I can upload from, in the absence of a source. I am considering replacing with File:Haiti ne18-8 air small.jpg – any problem with that?
 * is the current link. Looks like it was moved. (Though the source image is rotated and has a different exposure, it's clearly the same image). I'd stick with the Space Shuttle imagery. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:53, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have uploaded a new version using the space shuttle image in the source link you provide, which I have cropped, turned and lightened. Should be OK now. Brianboulton (talk) 15:58, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No need to use that version; it's clearly the same as the NASA image at the source (just modified; all you had to do was update the source). Coulda cropped the image which was already in the article, as the quality appears slightly better. The new crop appears washed out. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

— Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * When you said: "Probably worth a separately-uploaded crop, I interpreted this as meaning I should separately upload, and crop, the image from the source which you provided. That is what I did. Now you seem to be saying I needn't have done any of that, and that all I need do is to change the link on the original image, and continue to use that. Is that the case? Brianboulton (talk) 16:45, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "A separately uploaded crop" was said before the correct link was provided; that would mean that a crop of the image which was already in the article (and not the one currently on NASA's webpage, which neither of us knew existed at the time). I still say a crop of the original image is preferable. Updating the source link in File:Gonave.jpg was and is still necessary, though, as that's the only way we can show that it is, indeed, free, and thus our derivative work (i.e. the crop) is also free.00:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I have restored File:Gonave.jpg, with the revised link details in the image page. I hope that is all that is necessary. I am somewhat out of my comfort zone in trying to deal with images, so if there is any minor fix still outstanding that you can see, please fix! Thank you for your patient attention in this review. It must be a pain dealing with the unenlightened. Brianboulton (talk) 09:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll do the final bit. Images are ready for promotion. Sorry I wasn't clearer. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments
 * I'd like to see some work in the lede, which seems wordy and somewhat confusing, especially the opening statements. The last two paras would seem to be improved greatly by following chronological order and grouping items into related paras. Should I go ahead?
 * No. The order of these paragraphs was something I considered in the drafting stage, eventually deciding that the speculations that resulted from the inconclusive Gibraltar hearings naturally followed the summary of these hearings, with the ship's ultimate fate recorded in the final paragraph. While there is room for valid disagreement on this, I feel that the present order is the more logical, and unless there is a consensus among other reviewers that the paragraph order be changed, it should be left as it is. Brianboulton (talk) 01:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

"After an accident-prone career"
 * Reading the text it seems her career was relatively accident free except for her first and last voyage? Actually, someone states that directly. Should this not be "accident-prone first voyage"?
 * That wouldn't make any sense: "After an accident-prone first voyage, she transferred to American ownership..." But I do take your point that most of her British career was free of trouble, so I have neutralised the prose. Brianboulton (talk) 01:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

"in Nova Scotia"
 * Perhaps a paran note that this was still British at the time, or alternately, "today part of Canada".
 * Nova Scotia is linked. The suggested additional words,  in my view,  add no useful information to the story. Brianboulton (talk) 01:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

"The ship was constructed of locally felled timber, and was rigged as a brigantine"
 * Jargon is bad. Is there any reason not to explain a bit about what brigantine means here? "Two masted" seems useful.
 * The word "brigantine" is not jargon, it is the proper name for this type of ship. I have added that she was two-masted; otherwise, the term brigantine is linked for those who want further information. Brianboulton (talk) 01:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

"she was carvel-built, with the hull planking flush rather than overlapping"
 * The wording suggests that this was odd, "rather than". But AFAIK, this was the common method of construction by this point, no?
 * Both methods, carvel and clinker (overlapping planks) were and are equally common in wooden boatbuilding. This information is by no means essential and could  be dropped without detriment to the article, but it seems a harmless bit of additional information for the shippies amongst us. Brianboulton (talk) 01:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

"registered at Parrsboro"
 * registered at Parrsboro, NS,
 * Unnecessary. Parrsboro is linked, and there aren't other Passboros

"sailed to Five Islands"
 * sailed to Five Islands, on the north coast of the Bay of Fundy,
 * It's actually on the north shore of the Minas Basin, an offshoot of the Bay of Fundy, but I don't see the need for adding such marginal information into the text. Information such as this clogs the text to no real purpose, and makes reading tedious. The links are there to help those who want further information about these inessential matters. Brianboulton (talk) 01:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

"On October 15,"
 * Should this not be part of the next para?
 * Good suggestion, and done. Brianboulton (talk) 01:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

"citing a phial of sewing machine" Is a phial the same or different than a vial? If its a vial, that term should be parened or used in its place. If its not, a paren or note seems appropriate.
 * I'll jump in here. Broadly speaking, vial and phial are synonyms. In a narrower modern sense, vials are generally understood to be tube-shaped, which may or may not have been the case here. In any case, phial redirects to vial (not that its an article to be proud of), and I'd think that would suffice. It's not a common word, but not one I'd consider obsolete. I'd be fine with retaining it, especially if that's what the source uses. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have linked "phial". It's the word used in all the sources – not one uses the equally-correct "vial". I also remember "phial" being used in chemistry lessons at school, admittedly long ago but not as long ago as 1872, Brianboulton (talk) 01:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

"He heard rumors that Flood thought he might have "
 * Did he hear these while he was in NY and this is why he traveled to Gibraltar? Or did this happen while he was there?
 * I've clarified this point, and also improved the wording.Brianboulton (talk) 01:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

"sea bed—a "seaquake"
 * I personally don't give a crap, but apparently since this has already been "scary quoted" it shouldn't be again here.
 * As the word now appears in the Oxford Dictionary, I'd say neither sets of quotes are apt and I've removed both. Brianboulton (talk) 01:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

"In August 2001 an expedition headed"
 * I suggest this be moved to its own section, it's not really anything to do with the final voyage. And I'm confused: this section seems to suggest they did not find the ship, but at the bottom of the article there is a link to a video that purports to be it?
 * I don't think a separate section is warranted, and I'd argue that the purported discovery of the ship's remains was very much to do with its last voyage.  Cussler was perhaps too hasty in declaring that he had found Mary Celeste, since the later  dendrochronological tests indicated that it was a more recent ship. I have slightly altered the wording, to make this division of view clearer. Basically, Cussler's finding that it was the right kind of wood is contradicted by the later evidence that the wood was too young. Brianboulton (talk) 01:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:12, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You raise some useful points. I don't agree with all of them; where I do, I have amended the text accordingly, and where I don't I have explained why. I don't see these outstanding differences as important points of principle, and am grateful for your review. Brianboulton (talk) 01:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 13:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.