Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SS Christopher Columbus


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

The article was promoted 00:05, 28 March 2008.

SS Christopher Columbus


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

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


 * 


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


 * Support per my stuff above. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: User:Dihydrogen Monoxide explicitly gave me/Lar permission to hide these resolved comments; see here. Maralia (talk) 04:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * It is not clear looking at the infobox why Goodrich Transit Co. is listed twice with no other owner between. Should there be an asterisk.
 * Probably. The data is from the BGSU ship registry, and Goodrich had multiple holding companies, HQ's etc, this was, near as I can tell, a legal ownership shuffle that didn't matter operationally. Either asterisk it, or smush the years together I guess... preference? Meanwhile, next edit run, I'll asterisk it... should that note go below the list of dates or all the way at the bottom of the box, or treat it like a footnote? (an earlier version of the article had refs in the infobox, but those were all removed (which is what caused the out of order ref numbering, actually, IIRC) during the GA process I think.)++Lar: t/c 18:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sources indicate she was owned by Goodrich Transit Co. of Maine from 1909-1921, then by Goodrich Transit Co. of Delaware from 1921-1933. I don't think the distinction is particularly important; I would be happy to just describe that as Goodrich Transit Co. (1909-1933). Maralia (talk) 22:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There is probably an interesting story in that ownership changes. When did Deleware become a buisiness friendly state?  Was it about this time?  Was there some risk that the company undertook at that time to make the change advantageous?  See if you can find something.  At the very least the text should retain this transfer detail that you found even if we can not find the reason immediately.  I have no preference how the infobox is resolved.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There probably is an interesting story, so I'd marginally favour keeping the ownership changes in this article. The larger question seems to apply to Goodrich Transit though, an article I started as a stub, rather than this one, unless a cite could be found. The best I could do was infer, (as I did about the previous ownership, which likely was a Goodrich shell, but I can't prove it) which of course, you have to be careful of not shading into OR territory... ++Lar: t/c 22:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Most of this information is now in the text. I originally filled in the ownership part of the infobox only because the new ship infobox supported it.  Perhaps the infobox could be shortened by limiting the ownership data to the text-- I surely have no strong feelings on the subject.  Kablammo (talk) 22:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The info box has merged the details out and I don't see Delaware anywhere in the text. Thus, potential information has been lost. Either put the information back in the infobox clearly stating the two different Goodriches or put the info in the text.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Finally found an explicit source to clarify this: the Goodrich Transit Co., incorporated in Delaware in 1920, was a successor company to the Goodrich Transit Co. of Maine. As such, I think this is great information for the Goodrich article, but I don't see it having a place here; the ship belonged to the same company throughout, and the company did not even change names. The source is Maralia (talk) 04:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * In this article you could say it was named by different incarnations of the Goodrich company which would tell people to look in the Goodrich article to find more detail.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 19:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I know you have been trying to make everyone happy with the images, but currently they are distributed 0/3/2/2 across the sections. Can we get one in the first section?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Doesn't the infobox take up the whole first section, or just about, meaning that an image would be in a squeeze text if it was on the right or funny if it was on the left? I do agree with the wish, though. ++Lar: t/c 04:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The infobox end more or less coincides with the end of the first section; on widescreen, it doesn't even end until somewhere in the second paragraph of the second section. I can't see any way to add an image in the first section without it sandwiching text with the infobox. Maralia (talk) 04:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know how this meshes with your other image issues, but most people have their preferences set so that their default image size for thumbs is tolerable on the left opposite an infobox. Try moving one image to the first section on the left without declaring an image size for the thumb unless it will lose support from other people taking issue with your images.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Just as an aside, most articles receive the majority of views from casual readers, not logged-in editors. The most important test for image placement, in my mind, is what the article looks like from the logged-out situation.  Per my comment below, things looked good at that time; I don't know if any images have been moved subsequently, though.  Risker (talk) 19:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As I understand it the most common display setting is 1024x768. When I set my computer to this setting a few lines of the second paragraph of the first section oppose the infobox.  I don't think squeezing would be bad if you put one image to the left of the second paragraph in the first section, but I am not sure what others think.  Then we wouldn't have an imageless section followed by sections with 3, 2 and 2 images.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you use the Captain (nautical), ferry, promenade deck, schooner link in the article? It seems that either propulsion or propeller should be linked. In fact many terms in the third paragraph of the Construction and Columbian Exposition should be linked.  Jackson Park should be linked on first usage, not later.
 * Capt/ferry/prom/schooner linked. Moved jackson park link to first. Not sure about which to link prop/prop :) (note that "propeller" was a term given to ships as a whole, back then, to contrast them with "sidewheeler" or "sternwheeler"... seems a rare usage now... that's just trivia for everyone's enjoyment) Any other links needed do you think? ++Lar: t/c 04:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That paragraph has a lot of jargon that should be linked is there a nautical cabin article? panelling, etched glass and many other words might not be familiar to all international readers. You could probably link about a half dozen terms in that paragraph.  Look closely.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 19:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I did see a bunch I COULD link but I'm concerned about over linking, so I did not. Perhaps others do think more are needed. ++Lar: t/c 02:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment
 * The commons link belongs in the external links section.
 * John moved it. ++Lar
 * The images would look better staggered left and right.
 * Excuse me while I die laughing. Look at an old revision, say, from before the FAC, that's how they used to be. :) ++Lar
 * There shouldn't be text sandwiched between an image and an infobox.
 * White livery image moved to tail of construction stack to resolve this. ++Lar
 * The format of the author names in the refs is inconsistent.
 * I think this is fixed, (John, Maralia, Kablammo, Sandy, et al, thanks guys) please check and advise which specific ones still have issues. ++Lar
 * Some ref dates need linking.
 * I think this is fixed, (John, Maralia, Kablammo, Sandy, et al, thanks guys) please check and advise which specific ones still have issues. ++Lar
 * Some measurements need non-breaking spaces or conversions. Epbr123 (talk) 18:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Example, please? thanks! ++Lar
 * This is now fixed. Epbr123 (talk) 10:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Some refs are missing the author, publisher or publishing date.
 * I think this is fixed, (John, Maralia, Kablammo, Sandy, et al, thanks guys) please check and advise which specific ones still have issues. ++Lar
 * There are some dead ref links. Epbr123 (talk) 22:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I could only find one this afternoon with the checker, fixed it ... (the Amships shiplist site, they keep reorganising that site)... any others? Please advise which, thanks ++Lar: t/c 01:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * According to the checker, there are six others. Epbr123 (talk) 10:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, 3 of those are "moved temporarily" which is not an error, the cite itself works, and 3 are warnings, again, not an error, the cite itself works. All "error" links are fixed. ++Lar: t/c 12:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If you follow the links, none appear to work. Epbr123 (talk) 14:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Linkchecker comes up with 6 items. Three are NYT links which all work for me (and are flagged only for excessive redirects); one is a googlebooks link that works for me (and is flagged with the inexplicable 'changes searcher'). Of the six linkchecker links, only the two Chicago Public Library links are broken for me (returning 404 errors). Can anyone else recreate Epbr's experience of all six links not working, or confirm otherwise? Maralia (talk) 15:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have been doing some work on footnotes which may have corrected some of these issues. See below.  Kablammo (talk) 18:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The image in the external links section still has a dead link. Epbr123 (talk) 11:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Removed the CPL one. (when I get time I may try to find the CPL stuff using wayback or something, they had some interesting stuff, it's a shame that they reorged and it doesn't seem findable)... The WisHist link is fine. Anything else? ++Lar: t/c 12:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You could if you wish link to the ship-wreck.com image page which has a lot of images, or cite it for the proposition that postcards are widely available. Just an option, if you want to use it.  Kablammo (talk) 15:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment
 * I'm about ready to support this article now, if the problem with the images can just be sorted out. I've got no problem with a ribbon of images down the righthand side, instead of staggering them; I think that where there are a lot images that makes sense. But there are, I think, too many, causing a block of white space between the Expositon and Regular service sections, at least on my screen. Are the graphics of the triple-expansion engines and the printed pass really necessary do you think?  --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd be fine with a ribbon. See the talk. But we have editors calling for a reversion to right/left/right now. I do think the engine and the pass add a lot to the article. The engine was alleged by the source to be one of, if not the, biggest triple-ex ever to that time. The pass could go (to McDougall's bio, when I write it) I guess, but it adds a type of image not often seen in articles. ++Lar: t/c 03:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I've had a go at repositioning the images. There is no more sandwiching, and images are staggered right and left without impinging on section headers. I dropped two images: the ore dock pic that was in the gallery (because the image quality just wasn't up to par with the others) and the engines image (because I just couldn't create room for such a vertical picture). I also moved the detailed propulsion info out of the infobox and into the text of the Construction section. It's compliant with image guidelines now, I believe; Lar, can you live with it? Maralia (talk) 05:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I will miss the engine, I think it's a big part of the story, but yes, I can live with any change that makes everyone else OK with the images. Thanks! Why not move images removed to the gallery at the bottom? The bridge image is not too key I guess. ++Lar: t/c 12:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


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

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

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


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


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


 * Support - My concerns were addressed above. — Bellhalla (talk) 17:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Anthøny  18:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.