Wikipedia:Peer review/SS Arctic disaster/archive1

SS Arctic disaster
This peer review discussion has been closed. This is an account of a maritime disaster almost entirely unknown in the UK – I'd never heard of it until, in a bookshop a few months back, I saw the provocative title Women and Children Last, and decided to investigate. The story is perhaps better remembered in the United States and in Newfoundland, a sad tale indeed, with few edifying aspects. The article has been a challenge to write, partly because of the grim details but also, for me, as my first attempt to write in American English. I hope this aspect (but not only this aspect) will receive attention at this peer review. Brianboulton (talk) 19:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Cassianto
Background Last voyage
 * Worth a link to Liverpool?
 * A slight slip into BrEng here: "26 October 1850" →October, 26 1850.
 * "was considered particularly remarkable" by who?
 * " Two of these were below the waterline and were admitting large quantities of sea." -- I suppose either would be ok, but water sounds more natural.
 * "All but one of its dozen occupants was killed." →All but one of its dozen occupants were killed?
 * "Luce ordered the ship's lifeboats prepared for launching" There may be a word or two missing. How about "Luce ordered the preparation of the ship's lifeboats ready for launching" or something like that?
 * I've inserted a couple of words Brianboulton (talk) 16:56, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * with around twelve women and five crew aboard" -- I probably completely wrong, but would it be "on-board"?
 * [interfering]: "They're a ravenous horde and they all came on board, At Sloane Square and South Kensington stations." But either aboard or on board is fine.  Tim riley  talk    15:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Cassianto talk 17:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

That's all I could find. A tragic tale thus far, but very interesting nonetheless. Cassianto talk 23:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I have dealt with all of the above points. Thank you for your review – a tragic story indeed. Brianboulton (talk) 16:56, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley
Either you're getting better and better at writing articles or I'm getting worse and worse at reviewing them. I can find hardly anything to contribute. My humble batch of gleanings:
 * Lead
 * "and nobody was called to account for their actions" – a switch from singular "nobody" to plural "their". You can, without fear of having a suffragette chain herself to you, write "his" here, as all the culprits were men.
 * Collins Line
 * It may just be my ageing eyes, but I could do with having the 1852 cartoon a bit bigger on the page.
 * I have slightly increased it. Any larger mucks up the page presentation (and some bugger will probably reduce it anyway) Brianboulton (talk) 16:56, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

That's my lot. What a strange affair! A curious mix of the deplorable, the gallant and the stupid – like life in general, I suppose. –  Tim riley  talk    07:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Newfoundland
 * "The owners of the steamer Victoria offered their vessel" – we learn where the John Clements was from, and perhaps you might mention the home country of Victoria.
 * New York
 * "but was proved false" – but this was proved false?
 * Aftermath
 * and no person was called in law to account for their actions – another mongrel singular/plural
 * Thank you for these points, all of which I have dealt with. And thank you, too, for reviewing this dismal tale. Brianboulton (talk) 16:56, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Kablammo
Kablammo (talk) 21:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You mention Vesta's watertight bulkheads, but not the fact that Arctic was not so equipped.
 * It would be relevant to mention that Arctic was constructed of wood, in contrast to the iron of Vesta.
 * Did Vesta also have steel in the hull (likely plating, if so)? Your section on "Collision" mentions steel debris embedded in Arctic.


 * Thank you for these useful comments & for your general interest (as indicated, for example, in your work on the SS Vesta article. With regard to the above, I have added a specific mention of Arctics lack of watertight bulkheads, and  have emphasised that its hull was made of wood. On the last point, I was wrong to refer to steel; Vestas hull was made of iron, and it was iron debris that impaled itself into Arctic. This, according to the source, was mainly from Vesta's stem and anchor. I have added in these details. Brianboulton (talk) 23:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Your changes look good. (1850 was a little early for mass-produced steel.)
 * I placed a quote on the article's talk page, should you wish to make use of it. I have several more books with some useful material, but likely will use them for the article on Arctic.  Kablammo (talk) 00:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quote, which I will try to work into the "Aftermath" section. It will be nice if the ship article can be developed further; my work on it was mainly a tidying operation. If I can help with further sourcing, please let me know. Brianboulton (talk) 09:20, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments from SchroCat
A few minor copy edits done - feel free to revert if you don't like any of them. Apart from those, it's very slim fare to pick up on (although I have no idea on the AmEng front, apart from the obvious bits you've already covered).

Transatlantic shipping
 * "left Liverpool for Halifax, Nova Scotia and Boston.[5]" This looks like three destinations - and why is NS given, but not MA?
 * "transatlantic mails contract": is this right (poss in AmEng), or is it a "mail" contract.
 * North American usage refers to "the mails", so I imagine "mails contract" is OK. But I am waiting for an American editor to pass jugement on this and my other AmEng efforts. Brianboulton (talk) 10:25, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Liverpool to the GB
 * "100 women or young children": poss "and" young children? ( or poss not!)

That's it: like those who preceded me, I struggled to find much to complain about, apart from the tale itself! - SchroCat (talk) 23:18, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Minor fixes done: thanks for your time and enjoy your holiday. Brianboulton (talk) 10:25, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt (lost at sea and never found)

 * Forgive me if any of these comments seem outdated, as I am working from a version several days old, due to the circumstances of which you are aware and doing this offline.
 * Lede
 * I would move the ownership by Collins to the second sentence, it seems to get in the way of the "headline", if you get my drift.
 * I get your drift, but the phrase doesn't naturally fit into the second sentence, and I'm not anxious to add more text. If you can suggest something neat and tidy, I'd be grateful. Brianboulton (talk) 13:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Newfoundland is probably worth a link, either to the present day province or what we have as to its political status (crown colony?) at the time.
 * "condemnation of" let's not mince words. "anger at"
 * ", and their failure of duty towards their passengers" I'm not sure failure of duty is an Americanism, but it strikes me this whole phrase can be safely deleted. I think the crew's actions speak for themselves. There is some tendency to over-explain things and to be wordy here and there.  I think spare writing is essential in this article, which should be fast-moving to maximize the impact, though of course preserving the encyclopedic nature.  I think people will "get" that it wasn't the crew's place to jump in ahead of the passengers.
 * "full enquiry" I think "full investigation" is a bit more common on my native shores. Similarly "called to account" might be "held responsible".  Also in the body, where you have enquiry/inquiry in close proximity anyway.
 * Transatlantic etc.
 * " first decades of the 18th century" I assume this typo will have been caught long before I upload this, but it almost certainly is 19th.
 * It might be worth mentioning that westbound passages are against the prevailing winds.
 * "United States Postal Service" until July 1, 1971 the "United States Post Office Department".
 * "from Delaware" possibly "of Delaware". Benjamin was, I mention in passing, a good friend of the Bayard family ... (no action on the latter)
 * "transatlantic mails" perhaps better for the US, "transatlantic mail"
 * Collins etc.
 * "around 25 percent" perhaps more formally "about 25 percent"
 * I am not impressed by the standard of accommodations, as I read nothing of regular trivia competitions. (no action)
 * Last voyage
 * "the location of the Grand Banks" I would strike "the location of" as surplus, especially with the image.
 * "maximum speeds," Either could pass, but I think "maximum speed" a bit more colonial.
 * "Keeping schedules was considered paramount" maybe "Keeping on schedule was considered of paramount importance"
 * " centre" center. It might be worth mentioning that St. Pierre is French,
 * "on which scenes of panic and chaos among the 200-odd sailors and fishermen aboard her were evident." perhaps a bit wordy. "as panic and chaos among the ... "
 * "he found that large steel sections from Vesta's damaged bow were impaled in the woodwork of Arctic's hull, creating substantial holes. Two of these were below the waterline and were admitting large quantities of sea." again, I think this can be shortened, increasing the, er, impact. "he found that steel sections from Vestas bow had holed the woodwork of Arctics hull.  Two breaches were below the waterline, admitting large quantities of water." or similar.
 * Confusion etc.
 * "and a mood of concern and anxiety began to develop" this seems to be understated somewhat. Will the sources justify something more? Even granted you don't with to repeat the section title?
 * I don't think, at this stage in the story, there is understatement here. Initially, most passengers and crew were pretty sanguine about the effects of the collision on Arctic. As Baalham carried out his inspection, and presumably reported what he was seeing, people began to get worried, a mood which developed into panic. Brianboulton (talk) 13:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "but jagged protrusions of iron debris from the impact with Vesta quickly tore the sail apart." as you've referred to the iron before, I think you can shorten this. Perhaps "but the jagged iron protruding from the hull quickly tore the sail apart".
 * "at full stretch" not a term I'm familiar with. Perhaps "at full capacity"?
 * "Realising" "Realizing".
 * " transmit his intention" perhaps "signal his intention"? I would strike "likewise" later in the sentence, as diminishing the impact.
 * Boats
 * "As water levels" I might say "As the water"
 * "only a minority could be saved in the boats." perhaps "few could fit in the lifeboats".
 * Newf
 * "was initially cool," and thereafter, I gather. Perhaps strike "initially"?
 * "Eventually Victoria departed without payment, " although the following clause provides some hint, this might be read to say that they did not search, but went on their way.
 * Huron
 * Quote box: I don't think the heading is needed. The footer tells us what the quote is.
 * New York
 * Can one of the two "false"'s in the first paragraph be changed?
 * Aftermath
 * You are inconsistent in your capitalization and italicization of The New York Times.
 * "Green-Wood Cemetery, Brooklyn" are you certain on the hyphen and capital W? Or was it that way at the time?  I'm pretty sure it is "Greenwood" today.
 * The cemetery's official website gives "Green-Wood".
 * Do we know if the loss of subsidy was due to the Collins Line's loss of ships, or due to such things as the transatlantic telegraph?
 * That aspect is not mentioned in the sources. I gather that there was an undercurrent of opinion, even before the sinking, that the Collins line was oversubsidized and that its "luxury" voyages were wasteful. The reduction in the subsidy merely responded to this mood. I have rejigged the prose to clarify this. Brianboulton (talk) 13:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * " never returning to the United States" possibly too strong. They might have as relatively anonymous members of another crew.  Perhaps "not returning to the United States".
 * " and no person was called in law to account for their actions." This does not seem like a US phrase. Possibly (in addition to the "held responsible" phrase suggested for the lede) you might consider "no one was taken to court for their actions".
 * Notes
 * "July 1952" surely 1852.
 * note 2: I would strike "financially", surely implied.
 * note 4: I would strike "differentiation".
 * A most gripping account indeed, and I have no doubt will sail through FAC without incident. I shall ponder the lessons to be learned, given my present situation. Should we strike an iceberg or another vessel ourselves, well, the only child on board is an older teenager who seems to spend most of his time in the gym and who presumably needs no assistance. Possibly I can escort one of the many elderly ladies onto the lifeboat, while brandishing my nail clippers at those who might interfere.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for this exhaustive reading. I have dealt with all the small fixes, Americanizations etc, more or less as you suggest, otherwise I have commented in the notes above. I imagine that you wore a life jacket while you did the review, a wise precaution. I hope that your voyage is proceeding safely and well, and we look forward to more dispatches in due course. Brianboulton (talk) 13:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * My cabin steward freaks out if I remove the life jacket from the closet, alas. If I have further comments, I will let you know, but your responses look fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:44, 15 June 2014 (UTC)