Wikipedia:Peer review/Mary Celeste/archive1

Mary Celeste
This peer review discussion has been closed. Almost everyone knows about the famous ghost ship, found abandoned and drifting in the Atlantic, her captain and crew having apparently vanished into thin air. Many of the "facts" generally assumed are false, inventions that have been handed down and incorporated into the legend, but the known facts are startling enough to make this into a gripping mystery story, the solution to which has defied consensus for 140+ years. I hope reviewers and readers will enjoy reading it as much as I did writing it. All comments welcome – please watch out for errors in my attempts to use American spellings (harbor, traveled etc). Brianboulton (talk) 21:15, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Tim
From first read-through, purely for spelling, my haul of suspected anglicisms, but caveat emptor (or better still consule Wehwaltum aut SArgenta): I have amended some typos, though in the case of "nagivation" most reluctantly – a fine word for domestic use. More anon on the text. I'm looking forward to this.  Tim riley  talk    22:00, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * dishevelled
 * fictionalisation
 * fictionalised
 * practising
 * kilometres
 * recognised
 * rumours
 * apologised
 * metres
 * dramatisations

Precious little from me, and someone else has already Americanised the spellings I mentioned above. That's all from me. This article is at the same time spendidly informative and intriguingly mysterious – a really good read. When it appears on the front page I bet it will get a huge number of hits, and quite right too. I am available for FAC on presentation of visiting card. –  Tim riley  talk    11:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Second and concluding batch of comments from TR
 * New owners, new name
 * I believe the usual American form of possessive for names ending in s is a single apostrophe: "Hains' creditors". If you concur, you'll want to change the five "Briggs's" later.
 * I think American prose tolerates the extended form – certainly I've seen it in American writing. The shorter form is I suspect more journalistic convenience than a rule. My American prose consultant, User:Rosiestep, did not comment on my usage when she did her spelling check; I'd prefer to leave it. Brianboulton (talk) 15:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If it were my draft I shouldn't have the comment about the new name relegated to a footnote. It's not incidental information: I'm fairly sure anyone reading this section will want to know.
 * If there was a known history or reasonong behind the choice of name I'd agree with you. But there isn't; it's Begg's speculation, with no other authority behind it, so I think it belongs more fittingly in a footnote rather than gaining authenticity by being quoted in the main text. Brianboulton (talk) 15:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Derelict
 * "A makeshift sounding rod" – unfamiliar term (to me anyway): perhaps a link?
 * Pipe-linked and described. Brianboulton (talk) 15:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "The last entry on ship's daily log" – on the ship's…?
 * Gibraltar salvage hearings
 * "Two weeks later, she left Gibraltar for Genoa" – do we know who was driving? Where did they get a crew?
 * Local crew, name of skipper added. Brianboulton (talk) 15:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "This was far lower than what might have been expected" – there seems a touch of Ernie Wise about this phrasing; I might drop the "what", I think.
 * Ooh-er - rephrased Brianboulton (talk) 15:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Foul play
 * "and no enquiry was instituted by the insurance companies" – you might ask one of our American colleagues if "enquiry" or "inquiry" is usual in this context.
 * Again, Rosie passed this without comment. Brianboulton (talk) 15:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * My view is "inquiry" is far more common in US English. However, enquiry might pass.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "This theory, Begg notes" – first mention of Begg: a word or two of introduction is wanted
 * "he left Arthur behind" – I had to refer back to check who Arthur was (short-term memory loss in the elderly and debauched) and perhaps "he left his son Arthur behind" would be a kindness to other dotards.
 * "sounding-rod" – this mysterious implement has acquired a hyphen since it was found on the deck in an earlier paragraph
 * Natural phenomena
 * "and it would surely have been spotted" – this looks like (though I know isn't) editorial rhetoric: it might be safer to say "would almost certainly…"
 * "One suggestion is that a "seaquake"—an earthquake on the sea bed" – I wondered vaguely, at the first mention of "seaquake", what it was, and now I know. Perhaps move the explanation up to the first mention?
 * It is linked, and explained (sort of) in the lead, but I've rephrased here anyway. Brianboulton (talk) 15:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Myths and false histories
 * "In 1913, Strand Magazine" – definite article lacking
 * "asserts that Gove tried hard" – first we've heard of Gove. Who he? (Though how nice not to have heard of Gove, some might say.)
 * Not Michael, but Wesley, the head of the Boston consortium. I've explained. Brianboulton (talk) 15:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Legacy and commemorations
 * "it is the Mary Celeste that is remembered; the ship's name has become fixed in people's minds as synonymous with inexplicable desertion" – I don't think that's quite true: I'd say the name "Marie Celeste" is the one that has become fixed etc. Not one person in a hundred would call the ship "Mary Celeste", I suspect.
 * One in a hundred is overstating it, I think, but it is certainly true that most people instinctively think "Marie". I inadvertently typed it in a few times, while I was drafting the article. I've covered this now. Brianboulton (talk) 15:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review and comments. No reply means point taken. On the question of main page, I'm cross that i've just missed the 130th anniversary of its wrecking in January 1885. We could wait until 4 December 2022 and have the 150th anniversary of its discovery by Dei Gratia, but life is too short. I might put it up for next 4 December (but it's got to get  through FAC first). Brianboulton (talk) 15:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If Tillman recovers from its present travails, I was thinking of 4 December as the 125th anniversary of his being sworn in as governor, if that is worth commemorating.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It will. For the record, I'm wholly content with the above.  Tim riley  talk    16:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Afterthought. Sorry to shilly-shally, Brian, but I'm fretting about the footnote on the name of the ship. I'm certain that most people who read the article will want to know why the vessel was given the name Mary Celeste. OK, you can't tell them – and so may I suggest this, or something like it, tackling the matter explicitly in the main text: "...registered her with the Collector of Customs in New York as an American vessel, under a new name, Mary Celeste.[14] The reason for the choice of name is unknown." [And then the present footnote, from "Begg points out..."]  Tim riley  talk    19:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I personally doubt the value of telling people simply that information is unknown – it's either the whole note in the text, or nothing, I think. It was indeed part of the text in an earlier draft, before I relegated it. I'll reconsider. Brianboulton (talk) 21:57, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Schrocat
Brief comments before a more thorough run through shortly:


 * emphasised is another to look at
 * FN12 has "and details get changed as the story passe through numerous" I presume passes, but its in a quote, so...
 * Both of thse are fixed Brianboulton (talk) 16:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Sources:
 * I think we're supposed to have 13-didgit ISBNs now, rather than a mix of 13 and 10 didgits (Here's a useful ISBN converter, courtesy of Mr Riley)
 * God save us, whatever next! I've never heard of this rule, but like the dumb obedient sheep I am, I have replacd the offenders. Brianboulton (talk) 16:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry! - SchroCat (talk) 08:48, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Cobb: do you have an ISBN or OCLC for this edition?
 * Cobb is no longer a source, so I've deleted him from the list. Brianboulton (talk) 16:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Fujiwara needs a location; you can trim the publication date down to the year, rather than the day. Brianboulton (talk) 16:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "Further reading": We should probably show these with the full publication details (as per the sources)
 * These books are hangovers from an earlier version of the article. They offer nothing significant that's not covered by the source works, so I've removed them. Brianboulton (talk) 16:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

More anon - SchroCat (talk) 11:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I wait in eager anticipation. Brianboulton (talk) 16:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I was wrong: I just can't find anything else, although I see Wehwalt is picking up some British English use. AmEnglish certainly isn't my strong point (as I found out while watching Ssilvers re-write much of my prose for SchroCat (talk) 13:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Am I to assume that you are done? If so, thanks for looking in – you can always weigh in at FAC if further points occur to you. I am leaving this PR open over the weekend, to give the maximum opportunity to reviewers who want to take a pop at it. Brianboulton (talk) 16:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Thoughts from Cliftonian
I have heard of this, but I know almost nothing about it, so I'm looking forward to an enlightening and interesting read either this evening or at some point over the next few days. I will note any thoughts as I go through. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  16:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Lead
 * We call the ship "British-North American"—is this strictly correct? Canada had become a dominion in 1867 (sans Newfoundland, which remained a British colony at the time of the events described). I am no expert on nautical matters so I will defer on this, I just thought I'd mention it. Why not call it "British", or "British-registered"?
 * Both Amazon and Dei Gratia were considered as British ships, flying the British flag and subject to British maritime law. Although "British North American" is a reasonable description, bearing in mind where they operated from, they are referred to in the sources as British, so I have amended accordingly. Brianboulton (talk) 00:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * "None of those who had been on board were seen or heard from again." "None" is a contraction of "Not one", so strictly speaking shouldn't it be "None ... was seen or heard from again."?
 * Fowler reckons that None may be singular or plural as sense demands. God (or at any rate Solomon) agrees: "None that go unto her return again, neither take they hold of the paths of life" (Proverbs  2:19)         Tim riley  talk    07:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * He actually wrote כל באיה לא ישובון ולא ישיגו ארחות חיים, which doesn't include the word "none" (the original says "All will not" rather than "None will")... ;) but I am happy to defer to Fowler and Tim riley. This is fine, I have stricken above. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  08:52, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * My ArtScroll tanach, which is fairly literal, agrees with Cliftonian, "and all who come to her do not return, nor do they attain the paths of life". The negatives (in Hebrew) are definitely placed before "they return" and "they attain". Not that my Hebrew's the best.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, look, I'm not having this! God is an Englishman, as we all know! (There is a chain of sandwich bars in London called "Le Pain Quotidien", which was going for a couple of years before I twigged where the name came from (saving your reverence, Wehwalt)). –  Tim riley  talk    16:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I know it means "the daily bread", from the topic of this thread, I dare say I can fill in the blanks from there. Incidentally, it has reached far outside London.  I was a bit surprised when I saw the one in Kings Cross as there is one about three miles from my home and I have some of their bread in my freezer ... but not nearly as surprised as when I saw the one on Nevsky Prospekt.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * "she was destroyed when her captain deliberately wrecked her" couldn't we just say "her captain deliberately wrecked her"? In my mind it seems we are saying the same thing twice, the word "wreck" having connotations of destruction in itself.

Early history
 * If the source gives details, it may be worth mentioning to which denomination Briggs belonged (if indeed he belonged to any)
 * Sources don't say – I'd guess Presbyterian, but that is pure surmise. Brianboulton (talk) 00:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * "was Danish in origin although born in New York" the two do not seem to me to contradict each other, New York being at that time (and today) chock-full of immigrants. This is a nit-pick though.

Abandoned
 * When we mention Briggs being joined by his "wife and baby daughter", it may be worth repeating their names just to remind the reader. "his wife Sarah and baby daughter Sophia"
 * They are named in the immediatly preceding section, so I don't think a repetition is justified. Brianboulton (talk) 00:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Salvage hearings
 * "and in a drunken frenzy had murdered the Briggs family" I don't think we need the word "had" here again. Small nitpick
 * "before fleeing the vessel in the yawl, to suffer an unknown fate" perhaps "then fled in the yawl to suffer an unknown fate"?
 * In the footnote we mention the William L. White drifting unmanned for over 5,000 miles. Are these nautical miles or some other kind?
 * "concluded that they were not blood" not human blood specifically, or not blood of any variety?
 * Not blood of any kind. Brianboulton (talk) 00:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposed solutions
 * "the deeply religious Briggs could have killed all on board in a fit of religious mania" repeated word "religious", suggest substitution of "spiritual" or similar
 * "if the ship was becalmed" shouldn't this be were becalmed? (conditional clause?)
 * We say 9 of the 1,701 were found empty. Does that mean the rest were all found full?
 * I have expanded the footnote. The inspection in Gibraltar revealed no loss or damage beyond these nine casks. Brianboulton (talk) 00:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

More later. Cracking read so far. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  05:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Myths and false histories
 * £3500 needs a comma

Late career and final voyage
 * We use "largely worthless" twice in quick succession, perhaps some variation

I hope this helpful. I found little to quibble about in this excellent piece of work. Well done indeed! And thank you for the interesting and enlightening read. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  22:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Most helpful, and thank you for taking the trouble. Where I have not answered your points specificaly, I have tweaked broadly in line with your suggestions. I am glad that you found the article interesting. Brianboulton (talk) 00:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Glad to have been of assistance. Please do let me know when this goes up for FAC. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  00:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Wehwalt
Here is part one of my specific comments.
 * Lede
 * "following her abandonment" perhaps "recovery" rather than "abandonment" so it doesn't seem like you were saying she was in fact abandoned (rather than, say, piracy by Gloria Dei or abduction by aliens).
 * "harbored theories" if this is a pun, it's a bit strained. Perhaps "entertained theories"?
 * Amazon
 * "continued McLellan's voyage." Well, as they had returned to point of origin, was there a voyage to continue? Perhaps "resumed" for "continued".
 * "single transatlantic voyage, to France, in November 1861" I shall be picky and note that the voyage back from France would also qualify.
 * New this, new that
 * "Collector of Customs in New York" is this the Collector of the Port of New York?
 * Briggs
 * "sea-captain". I've never seen it hyphenated in American English.  I would space rather than hyphen. "sea captain" (you use this term at least twice)
 * "practicing Christian". Hm, again this feels faintly British.  Possibly "observant Christian".
 * "Not long afterwards, he decided to retire from the sea and go into business ashore with his brother Oliver, also a sea-captain who had likewise grown tired of the wandering life." I would strike "ashore" and "likewise" as redundant.
 * "Pier 50 on the East River, New York," I would clarify that this was in New York City (if it was, after all, the East River separated New York City from the City of Brooklyn at the time)
 * "for transport to Gibraltar" "fellow-captains" again seems a little UKish.
 * "its glass broken" perhaps "glass cover" would convey more to an American reader.
 * Foul play
 * "over-insured" I'm inclined to think it's more common sans hyphen in US English.
 * "lingered". Accoding to the Tillman reviewer, that's POV.  I do not press the point.  I look over it. (no action required_)

While I'm sure the article will be fine for FAC, I would try to get someone else who is American (or Canadian for that manner) to look for any remaining Britishisms.Wehwalt (talk) 01:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Resuming:
 * As I was very tired during the last section or two, I've reread and have a few additional:
 * "A later testimonial would describe them as "peaceable and first-class sailors" You're really telling the reader that they had these characteristics, yet the source, I gather, is constrained by de mortuis (assuming they were)
 * I'm not telling the reader anything other than that a later testimonial gave these sailors these characteristics. You may be right in thinking that de mortuis nil nisi bonum was behind these encomiums, but that's not something I can venture an opinion on. Brianboulton (talk) 20:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Abandonment
 * "industrial ethanol" given that you are describing the substance before it is mixed with methanol, how does industrial ethanol differ from ... ethanol? Any word on what it was to be used for? That's a long way to take basic chemical substances.
 * I have probably been confused by trying to interpret sources, so I think I'll leave it at "denatured alcohol", the link on which will provide further information. The sources don't sat what its purpose was, but I assume some industrial use. Brianboulton (talk) 20:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "The weather was unpromising, and Briggs decided to wait for a better outlook." This doesn't feel like American prose, with the sticking points being "unpromising" and "outlook". Perhaps, "The weather was uncertain, and Briggs decided to wait for better conditions."
 * "land time" OK, I've read the footnote. I guess what I am wondering is what land was the time from, there's not a whole lot at that longitude.  I guess it's about even with Dakar.
 * Gibraltar
 * "attorney-general" Again, I don't think you'd use the hyphen in American English, and since it is lower case, it's not the formal title.
 * It was a British office under the Crown. Even your countryman Sharles Edey Fay grants the hyphen. Brianboulton (talk) 20:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I yield gracefully to higher authority.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "principal officer of the court" While it's clear from context what you are saying (in my view), the term "officer of the court" means a lawyer, and it's not obvious that people will understand what is meant by the full phrase
 * "Flood ordered a survey of Mary Celeste" given this was done by the Surveyor, I would consider changing "survey" to "search"
 * "without acknowledging that his examination was carried out many weeks after the abandonment, in entirely different circumstances." How was this not apparent to any reader by comparing the date of the disappearance with the date of the report, and the location of the disappearance with the location of origin of the report? You seem to be saying the report was flawed, but I don't see what you've said as evidence of a flaw.
 * The flaw is that Austin cited the upstanding phial as evidence that Mary Celeste had not been abandoned because of heavy weather, when of course the phial (and other things that Austin found in good order) could have been restored to their places at any time between the abandonment and the inspection. This discrepancy is noted by the sources, who express bewilderment that this obvious discrepancy ws not raised by the court. But of course, Austin's report suited Flood, because if bad weather wasn't behind it, then it must have been foul play (or so Flood reasoned). Brianboulton (talk) 20:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "Portunato's brief report on the hull" like any FAC, isn't comprehensiveness more important than length? Again, you seem to be hinting at a flaw.
 * "Brief" was not meant to imply inadequate. It was a short report that said that the hull was undamaged. I have deleted the word brief, to remove any negative connotation. Brianboulton (talk) 20:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Is it necessary to be so hard on Flood? The voyage which you say refuted his views hadn't happened yet. And knowing little more than I've read, it occurs to me there's a fallacy somewhere, I fancy. Just because the later vessel drifted thousands of miles does not mean the MC did likewise.
 * The point is that such an unmanned drift of 300 or so miles was   proved to be possible, even though Flood didn't believe it at the time.  (I believe I have been fair to him by putting Fay's refutation in a footnote, rather than in the main text) Brianboulton (talk) 20:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * $15,000" in dollars? or something on the order of £3,125?
 * Source only gives the dollars. I believe that conversions and equivalences at a distance of 140 years are meaningless. Brianboulton (talk) 20:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I assumed because of Gibraltar and all ... conversions at that time were meaningful because both nations were at least informally on the gold standard. However, we must go by the source.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * " Cochrane's final words in the hearing" are they extant? Seems it's worth at least a footnote.
 * His final words were apparently his criticisms of Morehouse for letting the Dei Gratia, with Deveau, depart during the hearing. I have reorganised this paragraph to make this clear. Brianboulton (talk) 20:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Proposed solutions
 * "Flood's imagined scenario" I would strike "imagined". Scenario, or even "theory", suffices to let the reader know they should not take it as a given.
 * "The weakness of this theory is that if the ship had been becalmed, all sails would have been set to catch any available breeze, yet the ship was found with many of its sails furled." I certainly do not want to get into arguing theories, but this assumes they would have left the vessel with all sails rigged. Presumably, they'd want the vessel to be able to be found again, by themselves, or rescuers, and so furled the sails.
 * Well, yes, but equally, it is unlikely they would have abandoned until the danger from the reef was imminent. They would not then have had time to furl the sails before departing...but it's all guesswork. Your theory, regrettably, is not ecorded in the sources. Brianboulton (talk) 20:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Late career (I might say "Later ..."
 * "were deferred" if it was unconditional, I would say "were dropped" or "were dismissed"
 * Legacy
 * "two well-received radio plays " I don't know radio history to say whether "radio plays" was a term used in US parlance.
 * If you don't know a sufficiently "American" term for a radio play I'm sure I don't! "Radio dramas", perhaps? Brianboulton (talk) 20:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that's fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "positing any definite solution" perhaps "coming to any conclusions"
 * That's all I have, and I apologize for the disjointed manner. I still think you should seek another American or two to check your prose.  Some of it is a matter of tone, of greater formality, that I associate with British writing.  However, it is solely my opinion.  Aside from that it seems an excellent and thorough survey of the mystery and I have no doubt will do fine at FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Other American eyes have checked over for spellings and other egregious Britishisms. I think the WP convention that articles on US subjects should use AmEng spellings and date formats, and those on British subjects use Brit spelling, etc., is fine, but I don't see this as a requirement that, in writing on an American subject, I have to adopt an artificial "American" style. I certainly didn't do this on my most recent attempt at an American subject (SS Arctic disaster) I also harbour (sic) a belief that the AmEng–Brit Eng differences, while quite pronounced at the journalistic level, become much less evident as the level of scholarship increases. I often am unaware, when reading articles in scholarly journals, whether the writer is British or American. Thank you, anyway, for your review and comments, thought-provoking as always. Where I have not specifically commented, you can assume I have adopted your suggestion or something close to it. Brianboulton (talk) 20:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That's fine. I feel you've answered my concerns.  Good luck with it, see you at FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Will read this tomorrow. sorry for the delay. One thing I spotted initially was that the technical data of the ship in the infobox isn't sourced and unless I'm mistaken I can't see it mentioned in the prose. It should probably be sourced for verification purposes. I gather like the other there's not enough technical information to make a section worth adding in the article on it?♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The technical data is all in the article, and referenced there (see "Amazon" and "New owner" sections). Doctor, I am closing this peer review, but of course your comments will be most welcome at the forthcoming FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 23:24, 9 March 2015 (UTC)