Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SS Politician/archive1

SS Politician

 * Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 20:16, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

The SS Politician was a cargo boat that ran aground in 1941. She would have been just another statistic of a wartime shipping loss if it was not for one thing: she contained 22,000 cases (264,000 bottles) of scotch. It was the habit of Hebrideans to look at all wrecks on their shores as bounty to be rescued from the being lost, irrespective of the niceties of the maritime salvage laws. The fact that a Scotch-drinking writer by the name Compton Mackenzie lived on a neighbouring island and decided to use it as a basis for a humorous story meant that Politician was immortalised in the book and two films that go under the name Whisky Galore. There is a darker side to it all – and the book's pompous figure of Captain Waggett was, in reality a customs man named McColl, who persecuted and prosecuted anyone who had taken from the wreck. Any and all comments are most welcome. – SchroCat (talk) 20:16, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

 * "the salvors was shipped back to its bonded warehouses, although this was also looted during its journey. No-one was injured or killed in the accident. Two salvage crews removed much of the cargo," You introduce the salvors after the first reference to them.
 * "While she was still being fitted out, she was hit by another ship and damaged.[8][9]" If she was still being fitted out, was she as yet a ship to justify "another"?
 * Ah, the old metaphysical question of 'at what point does the ship come into being'! ;-) She was enough of a ship to have been released down the slipway and into the river where the rest of her was being fitted out. I don't know whether that tachnically makes her a ship at that point. The two main sources refer to the vessel as a ship, although neither of them is a technical shipping publication, and may be using the term in a layman's sense. Pinging and, both of whom have been hugely helpful on other ship-related points. - SchroCat (talk) 09:12, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Once she floats shes a boat (or ship)! Lyndaship (talk) 09:17, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Many thanks Lyndaship! - SchroCat (talk) 09:35, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * "She traded on the US eastern seaboard until 1930" I would be surprised if this trade was licit, given the Jones Act. Or were her voyages actually international?
 * She was a general trading vessel, and there was no question that she was shipping alcohol at that time. - SchroCat (talk) 09:12, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * "bikes" Bicycles?
 * "The salvors extracted £360,000 in Jamaican currency from number five hold and passed it to Gledhill.[m] He sealed the money in boxes and sent it to the salvage agents via the local post office on South Uist. The notes were handed over to the Bank of England.[92] Many had already entered circulation ..." it's the circulation bit that bothers me. Would these have been acceptable in ordinary commerce in Britain? Or would they have needed to be taken for exchange, say at a bank or post office? If the latter, I would not say "circulation", but possibly "commerce".
 * The sources do not clarify if they were an accepted currency (although they were pegged to the same value as the pound). I've tweaked to "Many had already been presented at banks for exchange", which is supported by the sources and less questionable. - SchroCat (talk) 09:12, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Have to run will complete later on today.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:44, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * "and the company went into liquidation." Good one!
 * I thought so too! - SchroCat (talk) 09:12, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * A most interesting read, look forward to supporting.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:23, 14 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Cheers . I think I've covered all your points, although the question of whether she was a ship or not remains unanswered until advice comes in from the more knowledgeable Wikiproject Ships people. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:12, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support All looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:32, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your time and thoughts here: as always they are much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:35, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support by PM
This article is in fine shape. Some pretty minor matters:
 * the laid down date in the infobox isn't in the body and cited. When you do that, link keel laying.
 * The "notes" field in the IB has a citation that carries all the info, but I've added it into the body too, with the link. - SchroCat (talk) 08:11, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * link ceremonial ship launching
 * Done - SchroCat (talk) 07:15, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * 7899→7,899
 * Done - SchroCat (talk) 07:15, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * is the length given an o/a length, or waterline?
 * Clarified (via footnote) that it's the length between perpendiculars. - SchroCat (talk) 08:01, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * link Beam (nautical)
 * Linked - SchroCat (talk) 07:15, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * lk=in for the knots conversion
 * Ditto - SchroCat (talk) 07:15, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * "at about 7:40 am" what date?
 * Now dated - SchroCat (talk) 07:15, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * breached (past tense) combined with flooding (present tense) and breaking (present tense)
 * Re-worked - SchroCat (talk) 07:15, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * "Scotland's west coast engaged in what Hutchinson"?
 * Yes, good spot. - SchroCat (talk) 07:15, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * "On 5 June t he y persuaded", as we are talking about McColl himself, also "to assist them him"
 * Tweaked to "he and Gledhill", so the "them" is now correct

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:46, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * "began to become annoyed with correspondence began between"?
 * Tweaked the gibberish - SchroCat (talk) 07:15, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * should it be "A n Royal Air Force corporal" as RAF hasn't been introduced?
 * Done and linked - SchroCat (talk) 07:15, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Great story, nice job. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much . Two left to do, which I'll go through the technical sources and see what they say. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:15, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * And now all done. Thanks very much for your thoughts, and please let me know if there is anything else you spot. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:11, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * All good. Well done, a really interesting story well told. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:53, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Many thanks Peacemaker - that's very good of you. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Sources review

 * No spotchecks carried out
 * Links to sources all working, per the checker tool
 * Formats are consistent
 * Quality/reliability: can you say a little more about the nature of the source Important British and World Paper Money? What is this – book, pamphlet, whatever? Otherwise, sources appear to meet the required FAC criteria.
 * Many thanks . The Paper Money reference is an online catalogue that has been archived, from the numismatic specialist auction house Dix Noonan Webb . I've added the link to it, which I missed before. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Brianboulton (talk) 16:35, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support by CPA-5
Claim my seat here. CPA-5 (talk) 17:52, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * 22,000 cases of malt whisky and £3 million Link pound.
 * I never bother linking obvious currencies - it's a bit to WP:OVERLINKy - SchroCat (talk) 12:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)


 * that traded between Britain and the United States and Canada --> "that traded between Britain, the United States and Canada"
 * Done - SchroCat (talk) 12:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)


 * On Christmas Eve 1927 she was involved in another Link Christmas Eve.
 * Again, a bit to WP:OVERLINKy - SchroCat (talk) 12:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)


 * comprising ten-shilling and one and five pound notes Link pound and "five pound" needs a hyphen.
 * Hyphen added (although slightly reluctantly, as the Bank of Enland don't use one, and the OED have both with and without). - SchroCat (talk) 12:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)


 * had arrived and 500 long tons (510 t) of cargo was removed --> "had arrived and 500 long tons (510 t) of the cargo were removed"
 * Tweaked slightly to "500 long tons (510 t) of cargo were removed". - SchroCat (talk) 12:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)


 * when he returned only 4 were left --> "when he returned only four were left"
 * Done - SchroCat (talk) 12:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)


 * but the residents had learned of his raids on Eriskay American learned.
 * Actually "learned" is common to both, while "learnt" is mostly British. - SchroCat (talk) 12:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes it is. I see most of the Britons use it as an adjective which isn't in this case. Of course MOS:COMMONALITY says we should use the most common one. Which is like you said "learnt". Cheers.
 * Actually COMMONALITY says "using vocabulary common to all varieties of English is preferable". As "learned" is common to both British and US English, this seems to be the best of the two. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:27, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * From the various grammar guides, Gowers, in the second edition of Fowler, went on something chronic about the history of the two but expressed no preference; in the third edition, Burchfield merely noted that "learned" as past tense and past participle is always monosyllabic but is disyllabic when an adjective, but expressed no preference between “learnt” and “learned”. There is no difference of nuance between the equally correct "learnt" and "learned". - SchroCat (talk) 16:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)


 * had been seen on Benbecula—25 miles from Politician No metric units?
 * Done - SchroCat (talk) 12:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The date of her launch "15 November 1921" isn't mentioned in the body?
 * It's not, but it's supported in the IB by the reference in the "note" field - SchroCat (talk) 12:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Salvors were used to rescue as much of the ship as they You mean "rescuing"?
 * "used to" as in "employed to", but the latter is a bit laboured, so "rescue" is correct. - SchroCat (talk) 12:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)


 * every night between 20 and 50 men were on the wreck Replace "were" with "was".
 * No. "Was" is gramatically incorrect. - SchroCat (talk) 12:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)


 * See a lot of "bank notes" maybe merge them all.
 * Yep, done. - SchroCat (talk) 12:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)


 * He was given permission to proceed --> "He was permited to proceed"
 * "Given permission" is better in the context. - SchroCat (talk) 12:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)


 * He found that someone had been onboard overnight Split "onboard".
 * Yep, done - SchroCat (talk) 12:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 09:24, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, . All done now. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Replied to your response. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:06, 26 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all your comments here . If you have any more, I would be delighted to hear them. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:53, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think I can pass this one. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:10, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks CPA-5, I'm much obliged. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:15, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Image review - pass

 * Relevant locations for the SS Politician.jpg needs an explicit US PD tag. (Like 1942 Jamaica £5 note.jpg.)

Gog the Mild (talk) 10:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, now sorted. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 10:10, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Tim riley
I missed the peer review – asleep again! – so have a few minor comments now that I should have made then (apols). Those are my very minor quibbles. I thoroughly enjoyed this article and look forward to supporting its elevation.  Tim riley  talk   21:35, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Early February – 12 March 1941
 * "it was dangerous for the man left behind, and it would be a waste of their time too" – singular noun with plural pronoun. (And I feel the too is perhaps a touch informal and could be omitted.)
 * Done - SchroCat (talk) 07:02, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 12 March – early-April 1941
 * "four men, who police charged" – some aged and pedantic persons such as I cling to the accusative whom
 * Done; and how can I ignore such a lovely pun with the "accusative" being charged, by police - SchroCat (talk) 07:02, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Early April – August 1941
 * "widescale black marketeering" – I think I'd hyphenate black-marketeering, but I may be quite wrong
 * No, you're quite right. The OED has black market for the nound, and hyphenated for the verb. - SchroCat (talk) 07:02, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * "By the time the court cases had been heard, he had amassed" – who is "he"? At last mention we were reading of Gledhill and McColl.
 * Done - SchroCat (talk) 07:02, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Legacy
 * "along with other of the Ealing comedies" – might this be better as just along with other Ealing comedies or along with some other of Ealing comedies. Just a thought.
 * Done - SchroCat (talk) 07:02, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , many thanks indeed for your thoughts here - they are as appreciated as always. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:02, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Looking good now. A most stimulating article, and one that meets all the FA criteria in my view. Happy to support.  Tim riley  talk   14:32, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Support from Cassianto
Sorry for the delay, RL and all that. I read this yesterday and could find no fault with it. A very good article indeed.  Cassianto Talk  07:41, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Question Support from The Huhsz
'The journalists Adrian Turpin and Peter Day write that Bootham White's outrage should be taken "with a pinch of salt. He was hardly neutral, having been charged with building a case for prosecution."[70]'

This looks out of place; we haven't yet been introduced to Bootham White and it doesn't seem to relate to what comes just before it. --The Huhsz (talk) 19:55, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, mea culpa: now tweaked. - SchroCat (talk) 20:06, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the speedy fix; but 'The journalists Adrian Turpin and Peter Day write that the outrage of the customs men should be taken "with a pinch of salt. He was hardly neutral, having been charged with building a case for prosecution."' is still not quite right; the customs men cannot be "he". Could we summarise the quote? --The Huhsz (talk) 20:35, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, end of a long day! Now reworked and should be OK. - SchroCat (talk) 21:15, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's much better! Support. --The Huhsz (talk) 21:22, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Drive by nerdy comment by Nick-D
I'm a bit of a nerd about the World War II convoy system, so my interest here is about tedious convoy-details rather than the entertaining hi-jinks/large scale larceny which is at the core of the article. Everything looks good, except the line that "where she was to rendezvous with a convoy to be escorted across the Atlantic to the US and Caribbean". Convoys typically formed up in holding areas at each end of the Atlantic rather than had ships join them after they sailed, so this might be a bit off. Unless the source says it, I'd suggest tweaking this to something like "where she was to assemble with other ships to be convoyed across the Atlantic to the US and Caribbean". Nick-D (talk) 02:15, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Gav, did you have a chance to look at this? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:06, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * For some reason I missed this entirely., apologies for the delay! Many thanks for the comment; the sources allow your much better version to be included, so I've swapped it over. Many thanks. Cheers for the ping . - SchroCat (talk) 07:30, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Tks Gav, I think we can wrap this up now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:32, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 07:33, 13 October 2019 (UTC)