Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sinking of the RMS Titanic/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 GrahamColm 23:23, 25 February 2012.

Sinking of the RMS Titanic

 * Nominator(s): Prioryman (talk) 00:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because the 100th anniversary of the Titanic disaster is coming up on 14/15 April 2012. A number of editors, including myself, have been working on this article to get it up to featured status by the anniversary date, with the aim of having it on the main page on that day. As the anniversary will get a huge amount of coverage (films, television programmes, books, newspaper articles, exhibitions, memorial events etc) there is guaranteed to be a very large number of readers of this article on the anniversary date - it would be likely to be one of the most-read featured articles of 2012. A lot of work has been done on the article to get it up to standard; it's passed a Good Article review and I'm now nominating it for Featured Article status as the final step. Prioryman (talk) 00:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Support: This tragic maritime accident has fascinated the English-speaking world for a century. I agree with Prioryman that media coverage is likely to be huge for the 100th anniversary of the sinking in two months time.  I have recently perused our article in great detail as part of the GA Review.  It is a worthy account of the events and contains many snippets of information that are not widely known.  The article is very well written and, as a result, makes fascinating reading.  Dolphin  ( t ) 01:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm just making some observations on the talk page at the moment. I anticipate supporting the article in the future.  Imzadi 1979  →   01:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comments from Imzadi1979
 * My comments have gone unaddressed by the nominator. In the past, delegates asked that detail review commentary by a reviewer that anticipates supporting the article be placed on the talk page for the individual FAC. I have done so, but they've sat there unaddressed or undiscussed for the last 10 days. I cannot support promotion of the article with some basic changes to the text, and I may have to lodge formal opposition to promotion in the near future.  Imzadi 1979  →   07:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I've been working through the comments here and on the talk page but I may have missed yours. I'll address them today. Prioryman (talk) 08:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

All images are labeled as being in the public domain. The captions are all appropriate. As a side note though, I'd suggest that several of the images be cropped to remove the internal captions. The removed text should then be placed on the image description page.  Imzadi 1979  →   02:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Media review by Imzadi1979
 * I've removed the captions as requested. Prioryman (talk) 10:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The external links all check out, as does the disambiguation check. There is something flagged on the redirect review that needs to be cleared up.  Imzadi 1979  →   01:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Link checks by Imzadi1979
 * Fixed that one, the problematic redirect now points to the correct section. GRAPPLE   X  03:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I support the candidacy.   I think that the article could be further enhanced by expansion in the area of the sinking process itself and there are substantial difficult-to-digest sources on that.   I was planning to do that someday but haven't yet.  I hope that FA would not tend to freeze the article (make it too hard to edit) from further development. North8000 (talk) 12:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No Wikipedia article is ever finished, but if what we add later doesn't meet the FA standard in any respect, it will get downgraded. Rumiton (talk) 15:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I meant to put the above comment on the article talk page, not here. North8000 (talk) 13:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments: Nice article. A couple little things:
 * This bit sounds kind of repetitive: "The thoroughness of the muster was heavily dependent on the class of the passengers; the first-class stewards were in charge of only a few cabins, while those responsible for the second and third-class passengers had to manage large numbers of people... The second- and third-class stewards had to manage a far larger number of people and"
 * I've reworded this bit. Prioryman (talk) 23:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * In the Notes section there are several instances of (a single) "p." for page ranges, or "pp." for single pages. There are also a couple of hyphens that should be en dashes (refs #16, 138, 147). Also, your system of writing page ranges seems inconsistent, e.g., ref #49 is 118–19, while ref #110 is 138–9 (c.f. refs #138, 141, 157— there may be others). Moisejp (talk) 03:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've reformatted the refs to ensure a common system of writing page ranges. I can't find any hyphens that should be en dashes, so I assume someone else has taken care of that issue. Prioryman (talk) 23:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments: I find the Titanic story fascinating, so when I saw it was at FAC I just had to read through the article and offer some comments. I'm not really qualified to fully support or oppose, so I will just state my opinion of the article after reading through it (I have left specific comments, more like a peer review, on the talk page).
 * Prose: The article is easy to follow and is an exciting read. I was particularly impressed with the organisation of the article, and the flow between sections. I did find the writing a bit stiff at times, probably as a result of trying to make it clear what is happening. But often by tyring to make it clear, the sentences end up a bit forced and overly-wordy. I fully recognise how difficult it must be, so I don't blame you for this at all. There is also some ship jargon (confusing to a layman like me), and it occassionally lapses into a slightly inappropriate tone (more like it is telling a story). On the whole the prose is good though, and if a couple more people are willing to do some copy editing (I did a bit) then I think these problems could be ironed out.
 * Comprehensiveness: It is almost comprehensive, lots of detail about the actual sinking, but I think the background section should be expanded, and I also think there needs to be more about the changes it brought about to make ships safer (see my comments on the talk page). The lead also needs to mention more/something on the aftermath. Again, however, I imagine these problems could quite easily be fixed (so long as someone's willing to do the work).
 * Sourcing: I personally didn't like the fact that I often had to assume that one ref was convering several sentences. I'm a bit of a freak for referencing, so maybe my standards are too high, but I'd prefer to know that every fact is definitely verifiable. Sometimes I questioned if all the information seemingly attributed to one ref was definitely covered by it...Basically, I personally would like a higher rate of citations.

I really enjoyed reading about this fascinating event, thank you so much for your work on it (that applies to all main editors). It is impressive stuff. And I agree that it would be fantastic if it could be on the main page for the 100 year anniversary. It's a major event in history and that would be so good for wikipedia. I think it needs a bit more work, but not much. It could definitely be up to scratch over the course of this FAC, and I really hope other editors will work with you to get it promoted. If there's anything else I can do, let me know. :) -- Lobo (talk) 22:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Update: I am happy with the page now (it is comprehensive, and I was already being too picky about the prose and sourcing), and I think it should be a featured article. Like I said on the Jaws FAC I'm not sure if it's okay for me to give supports quite yet, but if it is: Support -- Lobo (talk) 19:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Broken harvs
 * Currently citations 57, 62, 77, 133, 134, 139 are not linking to a proper source. Brad (talk) 23:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe this should now be working. I've gone through all the harvs and not found any that don't work. Prioryman (talk) 23:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 177 Foster has no listed source. Also, Harland, John (1984). Seamanship in the Age of Sail has no citations linking to it. If you're going to use harvs I highly recommend installing the script User:Ucucha/HarvErrors Brad (talk) 10:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed both issues. And thanks for the advice about the script; I've installed it. Prioryman (talk) 20:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments
 * Well done article. It looks quite comprehensive to me.  As for the background section being expanded (as mentioned above) I think the main article should handle that so I would add a "See" note at the top of this section.  Also, two sentences in the introduction I would consider changing: 1) Rather than calling it "the biggest" passenger liner of her time I would say "the largest"; 2) Instead of "she hit an iceberg" how about "she struck an iceberg"? Jimknut (talk) 19:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * About the background, do you not think a couple more sentences, just to communicate the nature and importance of the ship, would be helpful for the article? I really do. -- Lobo (talk) 20:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Couple issues - but I really like the work and research that has gone into this article. I hope you're proud of it!
 * Sentences like "They did not go quietly." should be avoided -- we're an encyclopedia, not a dramatic account of the event!
 * I've taken this out. Prioryman (talk) 23:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I wonder why Lynch hasn't been used more? Were the other sources just more encyclopedic? There's a ton of information in his account.
 * I'm sure there is, but I simply didn't feel the need to quote more. If there are details you think I've left out, please feel free to suggest them! Prioryman (talk) 23:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * More to come. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: would love to see this one make FA, I really would. Have you considered reorganising the first sentence to say that that the Titanic sank? The "sinking of the Titanic" seems slightly odd - but I realise you want to get the article title in - there's no technical need to do so. I also fixed a typo. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 23:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I do realise there's no technical need but I prefer to work the title into the first sentence of articles that I write - it makes for a more direct connection between title and article. I find it very irritating when intros don't correspond to article titles... Prioryman (talk) 23:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Will return to the article after other reviewers have had a look. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Source review and spot check

All sources are high quality and reliable. There are two sources "Ballard 1987" but is the interview in Cruise Today used? If not, I'd be inclined to cut it. If it is, then please credit the writer as Hemphill, Mary Ann rather than Ballard.
 * It doesn't seem to be used - I must have intended to use it but then cut it while forgetting to also cut the reference. I've taken it out. Prioryman (talk) 11:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * [10]b: Failed verification. The American inquiry does not separate out women from children, so these figures are taken from the British Wreck Commissioner's Inquiry not the Senate one. All 6 1st class children were saved, and the number of male crew is 862, making the total 2201. OK. DrKiernan (talk) 14:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I've amended this using the British figures. The table actually came from the previous version of the article (before I rewrote it). Prioryman (talk) 10:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * [20]a: OK. I presume you've excluded China and the Netherlands because I don't see any Dutch at Passengers of the RMS Titanic and the Chinese are from Hong Kong? What determines the sequence of countries? I would place these alphabetically or in order of numbers on the ship.
 * I'm not aware of there being any Dutch, but the Chinese were, I believe, crew members rather than passengers. I think I've managed to find a detailed breakdown of nationalities which I'll see if I can add next week. The sequence of countries is fairly random to be honest. I've put them in alphabetical order. Prioryman (talk) 10:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * [20]b: OK.
 * [23]: OK.
 * [24]: Article: "Captain Smith acknowledged receipt of the message..."; Source: "Captain Smith acknowledged receipt of the message..." I'm inclined to accept this as OK as there is no creativity in a simple sentence.
 * [26]a: OK.
 * [26]b: OK.
 * [26]c: OK.
 * [27}: OK.
 * [39]: Please format at "Broad 1997" to match the style format of the other citations, otherwise fine.
 * I've tried to amend it but now the harv link doesn't work! Any advice? Prioryman (talk) 10:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed. DrKiernan (talk) 14:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * [59]: The quote is on page 71 of Beesley not page 36.
 * Fixed. Prioryman (talk) 10:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * [99]: OK.
 * [110]a: Failed verification. Only the sentence "It is said to have played the hymn "Nearer, My God, to Thee" as the ship sank, but this appears to be dubious." is supported by the source.
 * You're right, I had inadvertently conflated two different sources. I've fixed that. Prioryman (talk) 10:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * A source for the quote from Captain Smith and Byles's actions is still missing. DrKiernan (talk) 14:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I've added references for both. Prioryman (talk) 23:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * [110]b: I only see support for "Wireless Operator Harold Bride said that he had heard "Autumn", which probably referred to Archibald Joyce's then-popular waltz "Songe d'Automne" (Autumn Dream)." I don't see mention of Jessop or Gracie. OK. DrKiernan (talk) 14:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * For some reason the original source I gave for that statement seems to have disappeared. I've restord it. Prioryman (talk) 10:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * [117]: The source supports the overall conclusion but you need to change one of the numbers. The figures for the women and third-class children are fine, but Howells and the British Wreck Commissioner's Inquiry say all the 1st and 2nd class children were saved. OK. DrKiernan (talk) 14:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've gone back to the British report to verify this. Now fixed. Prioryman (talk) 10:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * [124]ab: Failed verification. Not found in source cited. These quotes are from Gracie not Beesley. DrKiernan (talk) 14:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, they are definitely from Beesley. There was an error in the text attributing them to Gracie but they are definitely from Beesley's account, of which I have a printed copy in front of me. Prioryman (talk) 10:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've tracked down the discrepancy. These quotes are not in the online version of Beesley linked in the article, and I was misled because Gracie quotes these words as Beesley's on page 55 of The Truth About the Titanic.. I can tell from the page numbers that you're not using the original print or the online version but a reprint. There's a problem with the online version: pages 112 to 119 are missing. Evidently, in the original book these words are on those pages. I think we either have to use the original book or the reprint; currently it's a mix of the two. DrKiernan (talk) 14:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right. I'm not sure how that happened; I think someone else has been trying to be "helpful". I've standardised on using the reprint. Prioryman (talk) 23:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks. DrKiernan (talk) 11:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments/queries
 * Provisional support—the article needs to provide conversions based for the ton measurements listed. Some further research is necessary to determine if they are long or short tons so that the appropriate metric conversions can be added. If I had to guess, I'd say that they are long tons because that was used for ship displacement measurements at the time. Either way though, until we can determine that, there's a bit of a gap, however small, in the coverage and accessibility of the article to readers in metric countries.  Imzadi 1979  →   02:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I found a source which clarifies this, so it's now resolved. Prioryman (talk) 03:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There's still "600 tons of coal per day" without a conversion in the first paragraph of the "Background section" and "Out of 39 British liners of the time of over 10,000 tons..." in the "00:05–00:45 – Preparing to evacuate" section.  Imzadi 1979  →   04:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thought I'd got them all. :-/ Thanks for highlighting those, I've added the conversions. Prioryman (talk) 02:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I was expecting links to the people and ships listed in the infobox. Is there a reason they're not linked?
 * Beats me, another editor did the infobox. I've added links. Prioryman (talk) 23:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The sentence "The high number of casualties resulted from a lack of lifeboats" is not really correct, since the number of casualties was also caused by lack of response from the Californian and poor utilisation of the lifeboats. I think that sentence can be chopped and then the next two sentences become "There were only enough on board for half the passengers, and many lifeboats were not filled to their full capacity."
 * I've simplified this a bit, roughly along the lines you suggested. Prioryman (talk) 23:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "She was capable of carrying ... 600 tons of coal per day." Sentence too long.
 * Split. Prioryman (talk) 23:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "(equivalent to over $100,000 in 2012 prices)." is unsourced: the citation at the end of the paragraph is from 1998.
 * I've added the price given in the book but the $100,000 figure is a simple calculation - it's the original price ($4,350) converted to its present-day value using the consumer price index. In 1997 (when the source was written) that came to $80,000 in the prices then obtaining, but it's now equivalent to over $100,000. Prioryman (talk) 23:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Can this be done using a template, or by adding the source used to calculate the modern equivalent, or by comparing it to the average wage at the time instead? DrKiernan (talk) 09:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * On the different numbers used throughout the article, there's no confusion in the infobox since the note covers the discrepancy, and the numbers in the lead are fine because they are clearly taken from the Senate report, which says 899 crew and 1324 passengers. Similarly, in the Casualties and survivors section, the opening note explains any difference between the previous Senate figures in the lead and the British figures used in this section. However, there is a problem in the Background section when another set of figures again is given. I think these should either match the opening Senate figures, or be changed to more rough figures that match all the sources (e.g. "about 890 crew and 1320 passengers").
 * I'll have another look at this. The problem is that someone else did the infobox, and I suspect they were probably not using the same source(s) as me. Prioryman (talk) 23:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I realised this morning that the figures used (892 and 1320) are exact averages of the two inquiries (senate: 899/1324 vs. british: 885/1316). They've probably been chosen on that basis. DrKiernan (talk) 09:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I think "to middle-class travellers," could be dropped as the span is given by the two extremes.
 * Done.Prioryman (talk) 23:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Should "the RMS Lusitania and Mauretania", "the RMS Olympic," "the RMS Carpathia", be in the form "the Olympic" or "RMS Lusitania", (without the "the")?
 * Agreed. Prioryman (talk) 23:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "This message also never left ... significance of the message"." Sentence too long. Is the point contentious? If not, cut the attribution and qualification. If so, try "the wireless operator, Jack Phillips, may have been preoccupied" instead of "the British inquiry after the disaster reported that it was probable that the wireless operator, Jack Phillips, was preoccupied".
 * I've reworded this. Prioryman (talk) 23:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Spelling: realizing or realising?
 * The second; I've changed it. Prioryman (talk) 23:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "Further aft, Chief Engineer William Bell ... distress signals to get out." Long sentence; "to keep the ship's lights working and to maintain electrical power for as long as possible in order for ship's distress signals to get out." could perhaps be shortened to "to maintain electrical power for the ships's lights and radio."
 * I've reworded this. Prioryman (talk) 23:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * In the casualties table, I'd put the numbers in the first three columns and the % in the final two, but this is just a personal preference. DrKiernan (talk) 13:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the table could do with a little reformatting, but doing anything with wikitables is a horrible job. Are there any handy scripts that might make it easier? Prioryman (talk) 23:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support I'm not aware of any. Thanks for the changes; I found this article both informative and emotive. Please try to resolve the numbers in the background section. DrKiernan (talk) 09:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Support switched from Comments from Ealdgyth Ealdgyth - Talk 13:27, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Lead:
 * "from Southampton for New York City." normal would be "from Southampton to New York City.", wouldn't it?
 * Really .. do we need to link "iceberg" in the lead?
 * I didn't add it, but it seems harmless enough, and if you click through there is info in the article on the danger of icebergs to shipping and maritime safety measures relating to icebergs. That's pretty relevant, and this is a wiki, after all. Prioryman (talk) 13:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Background:
 * Need a citation on "of unrivalled extent and magnificence" ...
 * 09:00:
 * Citation for the quote "bergs, growlers and field ice" and "passing icebergs and large quantities of field ice" and "passed two large icebergs" and "three large bergs" and "Saw much heavy pack ice and great number large icebergs. Also field ice"
 * 23:40:
 * Need citation on the quotes for "What do you see?" Fleet replied: "Iceberg right ahead"
 * OK Soerfm (talk) 12:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Effects:
 * Need a citation on "series of deformations in the starboard side that start and stop along the hull ... about 10 feet [3.0 m] above the bottom of the ship"
 * 0:05:
 * Need a citation on "women and children in and lower away".
 * OK Soerfm (talk) 13:04, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 0:45:
 * Need a citation on "We are safer here than in that little boat."
 * Need a citation for "It is only a matter of form to have women and children first. The ship is thoroughly equipped and everyone on her will be saved" and "Go, Lottie! For God's sake, be brave and go! I'll get a seat in another boat!"
 * Launching:
 * Need a citation on "weren't British, nor of the English-speaking race ... [but of] the broad category known to sailors as 'Dagoes'."
 * Need a citation on "I did my duty. I hope I finished [the man]. I don't know. We left him on the cabin floor of the wireless room, and he was not moving."
 * Likewise for "a mass of humanity several lines deep, covering the boat deck, facing us"
 * "Captain Smith's fate is unclear, but he was reported as being seen on the bridge as the ship went down." A bit awkward - suggest "Captain Smith's fate is unclear, but he was reported as being on the bridge as the ship went down."
 * 02:15:
 * All of the above quotes need a citation on the sentence they are in, if not directly on the quote ... otherwise, I'll be glad to support. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * All quotes now done. Prioryman (talk) 13:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Switched to support, and let me just praise this article - it's very readable and quite enjoyable. Excellent excellent work! Ealdgyth - Talk 13:27, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments, inclined to support : This is a very readable article which does not drag despite its length. An excellent piece of work and seems comprehensive to a non-expert. Just a couple of minor points; once these and Ealgyth's points are addressed or replied to, I will switch to support. --Sarastro1 (talk) 01:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "among them the famously "unsinkable" Margaret "Molly" Brown, who was lowered down from the deck as the boat was being lowered.": Not too sure about this: firstly, close repetition of "lowered". Secondly, describing her as "famously unsinkable" does not seem to be encyclopaedic as most readers will have neither heard of her nor know that she was "unsinkable".
 * OK, I've reworded and shortened this line. Prioryman (talk) 03:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "It was aboard this boat that J. Bruce Ismay, Titanic's most controversial survivor, made his escape from the ship, for which he was later reviled for a perceived act of cowardice.": Who says he was controversial? Reads as editorial voice. And not sure about "for which he was later reviled for a perceived act of cowardice"; it seems a little inelegant compared to the rest of the prose. Maybe "…escape from the ship, an act later condemned as cowardice" or "an act perceived later as cowardice".
 * There's an entire book about Ismay's escape from Titanic - the newly published (and quite well received) How to Survive the Titanic: Or, the Sinking of J. Bruce Ismay . "Controversial" is very much the term to use, since he was probably the most reviled survivor and lived in semi-seclusion for much of the rest of his life. I've reworded it a bit, along the lines you suggest. Prioryman (talk) 03:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "where bodies had once lain before being devoured by sea creatures": Seems a little dramatic to say "devoured".
 * It's a straight description. The bodies were eaten. There's an entire community of deep-ocean sea creatures which specialises in devouring corpses falling from shallower waters. See Whale fall for a comparable process. Prioryman (talk) 03:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "Eventually she will be reduced to a patch of rust on the seabed, mingled with her more durable fittings in the eternal darkness at the bottom of the North Atlantic.": Again, seems a little too dramatic, particularly "eternal darkness".
 * OK, I've reworded it a bit. Prioryman (talk) 03:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Bulkheads: I'm not too clear on this paragraph. I cannot really picture what is being described: did the bulkheads stretch across several decks and how did they relate to the watertight doors? Also, if they were open at the top, how did this translate to the ship's design? Were there "gaps" in the "walls" of the compartments? Are there any diagrams that would help? And finally, if these bulkheads allowed water to flow over them, how does this relate to the idea that four compartments could have flooded and the ship remain afloat? Presumably, the spillage only occurred when the ship was listing enough to "spill" the water, but this could be made clearer. This was the only section which I was not clear about. I suspect I am now rambling, so feel free to ignore this as it is probably me being a little dim.
 * I'll see if I can explain this a bit further. Prioryman (talk) 03:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "It was difficult to hear anything over the noise of high-pressure steam being vented up the funnels from the boilers.": Was this a result of the accident, or was it a common problem on deck? If not, why was steam being vented at this time? Forgive me if I missed something. --Sarastro1 (talk) 01:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It was a safety measure. I've added a couple of lines explaining this. Prioryman (talk) 03:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There were two kinds of boilers involved. First the very large ones that produced the steam that drove the ship. Whenever the ship's main engines are suddenly stopped from full speed the pressure in the system needs to be released by valves that open automatically on top of the boilers, letting the steam escape up the funnels. This was the noise everyone heard on deck. The other boilers were the smaller "donkey" boilers, used to provide heat for cabins and generate electricity. These were the ones that were manually vented later as the water level rose in the boiler rooms. Rumiton (talk) 01:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Support: Very happy with the changes. The diagrams really add to it too. Fantastic stuff. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Almost ready for support: Some minor suggestions first:
 * "when she hit an iceberg at 23:40" - when she struck an iceberg at 23:40
 * "but was travelling at nearly her maximum speed" - but was travelling near her maximum speed
 * "suites costing $4,350 for a one-way passage (equivalent to over $80,000 in 1997 prices)." - Needs a footnote and why 1997 prices? Why not 2012 prices?
 * "He had decades of seafaring experience" - Be more specific. How many decades?
 * "and had previously captained Titanic's sister ship" - and had previously served as captain of Titanic's sister ship Jimknut (talk) 21:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * All copyedits done. On the cost issue, see the discussion with DrKiernan above under "Comments/queries" - the source was written in 1997 so gives the equivalent values as of that date; I had originally used a consumer price index calculation to convert it to 2012 prices but he wasn't happy about that, so I simply used the figure from the source. It does have the disadvantage of being a bit out of date, which I presume is why you've picked up on it. Prioryman (talk) 21:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Support &mdash; Article looks good. Jimknut (talk) 23:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments very good indeed, some tiny technical issues... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought (somewhere in MOS) we discouraged the use of bold links (i.e. the RMS Titanic link in the opening sentence)...
 * Image captions - complete sentences or captions which have full stops in preceding sentences should end with a full stop.
 * "16 wooden and 4 collapsible." doesn't need that full stop.
 * Curious as to why the initial sorting of the "Passenger category" isn't the same as when you sort it once by that column. (I usually operate on the rule of thumb that I can always get back to how the list was originally formatted by sorting it by one of the col headings...)  I note the good use of row and col scopes so I would imagine it should initially be sorted alphabetically by passenger category.
 * "Lord alone has 3 numbers" three numbers.
 * Ref 1 needs an en-dash.
 * Ref 15 needs an en-dash.
 * Refs 21 and 22 are the same so re-use one.
 * Compare ref 15 (pp 150-151) to e.g. ref 31 (pp 43-4) - be consistent with the number of digits you include in the second half of the page range (e.g. either make the first one pp 150-1 or the second pp 43-44...)


 * Comment - I can't see where Notes 1–3 occur in the text found them. There is a citation needed tag in the collapsible box. Graham Colm (talk) 20:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Fixed several of these, but most of these issues concern things in the infobox - there is a discussion about the box's contents on the article's talk page at the moment, so these issues may well go away as a result of that. Prioryman (talk) 22:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Closing comment – I have decided that this article is ready for promotion. Please ensure that the remaining minor issues are quickly resolved, particularly my concern over the the citation needed tag. Graham Colm (talk) 23:19, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


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