Talk:Sinking of the Titanic/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Featured Article candidacy

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 [1].

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)

Editor Support Oppose Comments
Dolphin51 X – –
North8000 X – –
Imzadi1979 X – –
Grandiose – – X
Lobo512 X – –
Jimknut X – –
DrKiernan X – –
Sarastro1 X – –
Ealdgyth X – –
The Rambling Man – – X
  • 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)
Comments from Imzadi1979

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)

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)
Media review by Imzadi1979

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)

I've removed the captions as requested. Prioryman (talk) 10:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Link checks by Imzadi1979

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)

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)
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)
  • [59]: The quote is on page 71 of Beesley not page 36.
  • [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 [2] 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.[3]. 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)
  • 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)

Comments/queries

  • 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.
  • "(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.
  • Should "the RMS Lusitania and Mauretania", "the RMS Olympic," "the RMS Carpathia", be in the form "the Olympic" or "RMS Lusitania", (without the "the")?
  • "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"
  • 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".
  • 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 [4]. "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 — Article looks good. Jimknut (talk) 23:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments very good indeed, some tiny technical issues...

  • 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...)

The Rambling Man (talk) 13:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

  • 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.

Some comments!

Hi! I saw that this is at FAC and just had to read through the article. I'm going to leave some general comments on the candidate page, but these specific comments are probably better here (they're more like a peer review). If someone would prefer to move them to the FAC page, however, that's fine with me. --Lobo (talk) 21:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that review! I'll add some comments below. Prioryman (talk) 22:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Just a quick comment here, but I put my detailed review comments over at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Sinking of the RMS Titanic/archive1#Comments by Imzadi1979. I don't want them to be overlooked, although I did include a link to my comments on the FAC page itself. (The delegates need that link to additional detailed comments, and actually they prefer such reviews not appear in the FAC page unless the reviewer is opposing based on the review comments.) Imzadi 1979 → 23:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
No problem, I'm just getting through them item by item. Prioryman (talk) 00:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Lead
  • "glancing blow" > slightly strange expression? I see it is used again later in the article: is this a technical term? It doesn't make entirely clear to me what happened.
  • I assume you know what's meant by a glancing blow? It's an impact at a very shallow angle. See [5] for recent examples in the news. Prioryman (talk) 22:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Well no I don't, that's what I mean. My boyfriend here tells me it is quite widely used, but I'd never heard it before...I think you may as well just describe the type of hit, especially in the lead. --Lobo (talk) 22:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
  • To be honest I think "glancing blow" is the right terminology. It's the phrase that has often been used to describe what happened with Titanic. See [6] for many examples. Prioryman (talk) 01:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree that it is a good term to use here.North8000 (talk) 12:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • "The high number of casualties was due to the fact that there were only enough lifeboats on board for half the passengers, and that many of these lifeboats were launched partly full." I feel like this could be better phrased. Maybe, "The high number of casualties resulted from a lack of lifeboats: there were only enough on board for half the passengers. Many of these lifeboats were not filled to their full capacity."
  • Good suggestion, I'll make that change. Prioryman (talk) 22:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
  • The article has a whole section on "Aftermath". Some of this needs to be included in the lead.
  • I've added more about the aftermath to the lead. Prioryman (talk) 21:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Background
  • "By the time she departed westwards across the Atlantic she was carrying 892 crew members and 1,320 passengers, only about half of her full passenger capacity of 2,435,[13] due to a combination of the low season and ongoing transport disruption caused by a coal miners' strike in the UK." > Recommend splitting this sentence in two.
  • Could we not have a little info about the first few days of the journey here? Some stuff about the luxury of the ship? How heavily advertised it was beforehand? etc. I don't feel entirely satisfied that I have enough background information here, before we get started on the night of the sinking.
  • When this article was started there was a substantial discussion to limit the scope so as to not be a duplication of the main Titanic article. Not sure where that leads us, but thought I'd mention it. North8000 (talk) 12:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Agreed, but I've compromise by adding a paragraph about the significance of Titanic when she was launched. Prioryman (talk) 21:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • "The message never reached Titanic's bridge." > I know nothing about boats and this makes no sense to me. Who relayed the message, and what part of the ship did it not meet? Basically this needs to be clearer. You defintely need to tell the reader what the bridge is, because it comes up a lot more later on.
  • I've amended it to "The message never reached Captain Smith or the other officers on Titanic's bridge." The only thing you need to know about Titanic's bridge is that it's where the ship's captain and senior officers were. Prioryman (talk) 01:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  • It has a wikipage Bridge (nautical), it should be linked. I think all these nautical terms should be linked. --Lobo (talk) 10:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Good idea, I'll do that. Prioryman (talk) 08:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • "Although the air was clear, there was no moon and with no swell, there was nothing to give away the position of the nearby icebergs." No swell? Maybe I'm dumb, but again - this means nothing to me.
  • I've added a bit to the end of the line to make it explicit: "had the sea been rougher, waves breaking at the foot of the icebergs would have made them more visible." Because the sea was dead calm there were no waves. Prioryman (talk) 00:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Can "swell" not just be removed? The explanation does make it clear, but if that is saying everything anyway, then why not just remove a confusing word? --Lobo (talk) 10:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Effects of impact
  • Hold on...first it says "the iceberg was long thought to have produced a huge tear", then it says, "No one could believe that the great ship was sunk by a little sliver". That's a bit contradictory.
  • The quote is from Titanic's (re)discoverer, Robert Ballard. It's not really contradictory - people thought that Titanic had suffered a massive hole in its side rather than a small puncture, even though the evidence at the time pointed to the latter. (If it really had been a massive hole the ship would have gone to the bottom in minutes rather than hours.) Prioryman (talk) 00:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Ohhhhhh I see what you're trying to do now. This is initially confusing though, because the Ballard quote is the first time it's even been said (explicitly) that it was only a sliver. I think it would be better organised: 1) What people used to think, 2) ultrasound results etc., 3) Ballard quote. --Lobo (talk) 10:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  • "This was what now began to happen to Titanic" > I'm really not a fan of jumping to the present tense like this. I've changed it to "This was what happened to Titanic" for now, but I think it could be said better. I am changing any other occurrences of present tense when I come across it.
  • "The ship was listing five degrees to starboard and was two degrees down by the head within only a few minutes of the collision." > A bit technical. I can understand what it's saying, but the word "listing" initially threw me. This is definitely "ship talk".
  • Not really, "listing" is the standard term - in regular English - for describing a tilting ship. See e.g. [7] for recent usage in relation to the Costa Concordia disaster. Prioryman (talk) 00:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Well...I'll leave it to you, but you've had input from someone who knows nothing about boats - like many of the readers of the article, I'm sure - and I've told you that it threw me. It seems to me that all instances of this could very easily be replaced with "tilting", and be more user-friendly without changing the meaning. But it's up to you. --Lobo (talk) 10:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  • The problem is that "tilting" simply isn't the right term to use where ships are concerned. It would certainly be picked up and corrected by others. Prioryman (talk) 08:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Preparing to evacuate
  • "The mail sorters were engaged in an ultimately futile attempt to save the 400,000 items of mail being carried aboard Titanic, and the firemen in the forepeak could hear the hissing of air being forced out by inrushing water." Hmm, I find it a bit weird to link these two incidents.
  • I've reworded it a bit and split the two items. Prioryman (talk) 01:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  • "a few noticed that she was listing." > Huh?? Jargon.
  • "nor was it because of cost, as an extra 32 lifeboats would only have cost $16,000, a tiny fraction of Titanic's $7.5 million cost." Says "cost" three times in one sentence.
  • Good catch, I've reworded this. 01:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  • "One historian of the disaster has commented" > why not name him?
  • Wouldn't the last paragraph here fit better in the next section?
  • Hmm, no. Someone seems to have changed the times at the start of the next section. It should have read 00:45, not 00:15. I've fixed the chronology now. Prioryman (talk) 01:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I meant it would be better moved down because the last para is talking about launching the lifeboats. You can always just change the times again. --Lobo (talk) 10:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Departure of lifeboats
  • "climbed down a rope into the lifeboat; he was the only male passenger Lightoller allowed into a lifeboat." Anyway to avoid repetition of "lifeboat" here?
  • I've reworded it as "he was the only male passenger who Lightoller allowed to board during the port side evacuation".
  • "– and in some cases losing them – " I personally don't think this is needed.
  • OK, I've taken it out.
  • "Further aft," ?
    See below...
  • Benjamin Guggenheim > hasn't he already been linked? Check that people aren't linked more than once.
Launching the last lifeboats
  • "had developed a heavy list to port." ??
  • "Among those aboard was stewardess Violet Jessop, who was to repeat the experience four years later when she survived the sinking of Titanic's sister ship, Britannic in the First World War.[105]" > Could be cut.
  • Possibly, but Jessop is one of the most famous survivors, because she served on all three of the Olympic-class ships - Olympic, Titanic and Britannic - and survived the serious accidents which all three ships suffered. She was both incredibly lucky and incredibly unlucky... Prioryman (talk) 01:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I have removed the quote about the band from a block quote - it's too short for that, and it's clearer to keep all these comments together.
  • OK, I'm fine with that. Prioryman (talk) 08:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • "Phillips aft" ?
  • "Archibald Gracie was also heading aft" Seriously, what does this "aft" mean?!
  • Okay I've now been told what "aft" is, lol. I've heard of stern and starboard and port but never aft! I don't know why, but that term meant nothing to me. The article is meant to be accessible to anyone though, so I'd suggest giving a quick explanation on first occurrance for other ship-dunces like me.
  • A good way to think of it is bow=pointy bit, aft=arse end. :-) Prioryman (talk) 01:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I've linked the first iteration of the term. Prioryman (talk) 08:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Sinking
  • "It now seems probable that the "great noise" heard by witnesses and the momentary settling of the stern were caused by the ship breaking in two." > I think this idea may need to be attributed.
  • OK, but it will be a couple more days before I can do this properly, as I can't get to the source I need until then. Prioryman (talk) 21:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
In the water
  • "Others progressed through the classic symptoms of hypothermia: extreme shivering at first, followed by a slowing and weakening pulse as body temperature dropped, before finally losing consciousness and dying" > Is this based on eyewitness accounts? Can we attribute that?
  • It's already attributed. As for the list of symptoms, those are the standard symptoms of hypothermia; anyone in that kind of situation would have had the same symptoms. We don't need eyewitness accounts to state that. A comparable example might be that we don't have any eyewitness accounts of what caused the deaths of the people trapped in the World Trade Center on 9/11, but it's possible to be pretty certain about it. Prioryman (talk) 01:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I didn't just mean attributed with a ref, I mean WP:INTEXT attribution. Well if it's not based on eyewitness accounts, I think it needs to be phrased "Others likely progressed..." It's a bit much to make it sound like the person writing the article was right there, knowing everything that happened (something the article does suffer from a bit...) --Lobo (talk) 10:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Is that really necessary though? I don't think "likely" is necessary because we know that's what happened. It's a straightforward physical process in which there's no possible doubt about what happened. If you or almost anyone else is immersed in very cold water for a prolonged period you will go through exactly the same symptoms. Prioryman (talk) 08:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • If it's a statement of universal knowledge (rather than a direct observation from the Titanic) possibly it shouldn't be in the article? North8000 (talk) 12:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, it's not universal knowledge, I think. It was certainly little understood at the time (the cause of death for the victims was invariably described as "drowning", not hypothermia) and it's necessary to explain (a) what exactly caused the death of those in the water and (b) what they experienced. Prioryman (talk) 22:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Do the collapsible boat names need to be put in quote marks ("A")? It's a bit jarring when the lifeboats don't do this (ie, looks inconsistent). Is that how all the sources refer to them?
  • Some do, some don't. I can take the quote marks out if necessary. Prioryman (talk) 01:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't think the quote marks are necessary.--Lobo (talk) 10:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  • OK, I've removed them. Prioryman (talk) 08:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • "They did not go quietly." > I've cut this, I find it a bit journalistic/not the right tone. Add it back if you like though.
  • "debated what, if anything, they should do to rescue the swimmers. No. 4 boat seems to have been closest to the swimmers; this enabled several to swim over and be picked up" The word swim comes up a bit too much here, see if you can recast it.
  • Good point, I've changed this to "No. 4 boat seems to have been closest to the site of the sinking". Prioryman (talk) 01:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  • " and the likelihood of their survival must have seemed increasingly remote" > Hmm, I'd rather see this deleted. It's a bit too...appealing to the emotions.
  • I'll have a look at the survivors' accounts to see if there's something I can replace it with. Prioryman (talk) 01:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I've now added a quote to replace this bit. Prioryman (talk) 23:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Aftermath
  • "The news hit hardest in Southampton" > not very keen on this phrase...
  • It's a pretty straight reflection of the sources. Southampton suffered more losses in the disaster than anywhere else, by some way. Prioryman (talk) 01:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oh I'm sure it's accurate, I just find the phrasing a bit journalistic. --Lobo (talk) 10:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I've reworded this. Prioryman (talk) 22:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • "The disaster led to major changes in maritime regulations to implement new safety measures, such as ensuring that there were enough lifeboats, that lifeboat drills were properly carried out and that wireless equipment on passenger ships was manned around the clock." The consequences of the sinking, and the changes it bought about, are extremely important. I'd rather they weren't summarised in this rather casual way. I even think it deserves a paragraph - there must be a decent amount of information about this stuff?
  • I definitely think more of this stuff needs to be included in this article. It's extremeley relevant, and people shouldn't have to rely on going to another page (at the moment, there isn't even a link to that subarticle). And now that you've added more about the aftermath to the lead, some of the the stuff there isn't even mentioned in the main article (ie, the public outrage). The things you added to the lead are really interesting, they should be properly developed later on.--Lobo (talk) 10:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I've added a bit more but I'd agree with the point made below by North8000. I've also added "see also" links to the Aftermath section to provide the necessary linking to further information. Since I'm trying to keep the article size under 10,000 words (it's currently just under 9,800 but I'm going to use some of the extra 200 up next week), I really don't want to go into much more detail. Prioryman (talk) 22:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • When this article was started there was a substantial discussion to limit the scope so as to not be a duplication of the other Titanic articles. Not sure where that leads us, but thought I'd mention it. I also agree that one shouldn't have to read a second article to read an article, but we're talking about brief mentions of items that are outside of the scope of this article and within the scope of other Titanic articles. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I know a lot of people don't like pop culture references, but I think it is relevant that one of the highest grossing films of all time is based on this incident. And there have been a number of other films about it. The article mentions: "The ship's rediscovery led to an explosion of interest in Titanic's story[165] and the launching of numerous expeditions to film the wreck and, controversially, to salvage objects from the debris field." I was fully expecting this to lead into a sentence about movies based on Titanic, it would fit so well. And surely the Cameron film subsequently caused another resurgence of interest?
  • Fair point, I'll see what I can work into the article about that. Prioryman (talk) 01:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  • OK, I've added a paragraph on the popular culture issue. Prioryman (talk) 22:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Explanatory notes
  • When I looked at the contents this heading made me think it was going to be a section explaining the reasons for the disaster, or something like that. I don't think it's the best name. I say just make a setion called "Notes and references", then put your notes under a subheading "Notes" and the citations under a subheading "References". And then the section you now have called References could become "Sources".

Feel free to comment back here, I will watch the page.

Follow-up comments: I really like the additions to the background and aftermath sections. The article is now very nicely rounded. It stands fully on its own, not just as a branch of Titanic articles. Although, the lead currently says "The disaster caused widespread public outrage over...", but there isn't any mention of this in the acticle. I don't think the statement should be removed from the lead, I think a couple of sentences about this should go in the aftermath section. I understand that you're concerned about the length, but I think this is important enough to warrant adding 50 or so more words. How about my suggestion of moving the last para of "Preparing to evacuate" down to the start of "Departure of lifeboats"? Seeing as the paragraph begins "By about 00:20, 40 minutes after the collision, the loading of the lifeboats was under way", I definitely think this would be more appropriate. Keep up the good work, --Lobo (talk) 00:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and the MoS on notes and references doesn't suggest "Explanatory notes" as a heading. It says: "For a list containing both types of footnote: "Notes", "Footnotes". So perhaps implement this. I do think "Explanatory notes" is a bit confusing. --Lobo (talk) 00:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Second follow-up: Prioryman asked me if all my conerns had been addressed. I'm afraid no, as you still haven't responded to 1) my comment about the lack of discussion on public outrage in the Aftermath section, and 2) my suggestion to move down a paragraph into a more appropriate section. I think the first one is a necessity, as it is mentioned in the lead, and the second one, while not a necessity, seems very logical and I can't think why there may be resistance towards it..? --Lobo (talk) 12:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for highlighting these. Sorry I missed the first issue - the discussion has been going on in so many places that it's been quite hard to track it. I'll address it tonight or tomorrow. As for the second issue, it's not that there's resistance, I just haven't decided the best way of doing this. Again, I'll address it tonight or tomorrow. Prioryman (talk) 18:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I've reordered the lifeboats a bit - see what you think of it now. Prioryman (talk) 07:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, well now we've ended up with some of the "Departure of the lifeboats" section moving up! I was suggesting that the final paragraph of "Preparing to evacuate" move down. I think I see where the confusing is stemming from now though: I thought it made sense for the loading of the lifeboats to also go in the departure section—I didn't really think of the distinction, I just felt it was logical for all the lifeboat stuff to go together. But I guess that loading them could still count as "preparing to evacuate"...it's awkward, it could fit in either section really. I don't mind, I'm not going to push the point (especially since no-one else has mentioned a problem with it), you do what you think is best. And I love the animation by the way, it really adds to the page. I'm very impressed you made it yourself. --Lobo (talk) 12:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

We have to be careful that we aren't duplicating the RMS Titanic article

I have some concern that it is getting nudged by reviewers into doing this. We have a RMS Titantic article, and 80% of it is about the sinking. The intent of this new article (actually evolved from an article which was a timeline of the sinking process) was to expand on the sinking process itself, not be overall coverage of items related to the sinking. I suppose the title adds to that expectation. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you referring to the fact that I asked for a couple more sentences? Because that's all I asked for. And the main reason I am now asking for that is because the public outrage is mentioned in the lead, and you aren't meant to write anything in the lead that isn't expanded on later in the article. Anyway, I really don't think it is a problem for articles to overlap a bit, so long as the material is definitely needed on each respective page. Which to my mind, this is. I don't think it is helpful to only think of this as an extension of the main Titanic article - the page should be able to stand alone as well (particularly if it's going to feature on the main page). But if the main editors don't want to do this, I'm not going to argue. You can obviously ignore my suggestions if you want. --Lobo (talk) 12:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I meant my comments more as just something to keep in mind, and providing background info on this article. I think that your comments are quite natural and fine for an article with this title and also as you correctly pointed out about the lead statement. I think that my comments come more from the fact that the title of this article (which, on the face of it, can cover 80% of the main article) basically puts in on the edge of a slippery slope into duplicating the main article, and a couple of extra thoughts because of that. So, thanks for your initial comments and for this additional info. North8000 (talk) 20:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I think both of you are right. :-) This article certainly does need to work as a stand-alone. At the same time, we do need to avoid needless duplication. I've been thinking about how the Titanic-related articles relate to each other and will post some thoughts on that tomorrow. Prioryman (talk) 23:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Cool. Again, folks should take my comments as just putting a few thoughts lightly out there, nothing more, nothing else. North8000 (talk) 00:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Ismay

Ismay was the managing director of the White Star Lines shipping company.He was a man who named the Titanic.By S.Spence — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.146.23.112 (talk) 16:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Number of lifeboats

The recent edit concerning current requirements for provision of boats on passenger ships is a little misleading. According to the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) Convention, 1998: Section II – Passenger Ships (Additional Requirements) Regulation 21 - Survival craft and rescue boats: Passenger ships on international voyages which are not short must carry partially or totally enclosed lifeboats on each side to accommodate not less than 50% of total number of persons on board (in other words, the two sides together must equal at least 100%). Some lifeboats can be substituted by liferafts. In addition, inflatable or rigid liferafts to accommodate at least 25% of the total number of persons on board. Rumiton (talk) 12:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Today, there has to be provision for everyone on board either in a lifeboat or liferaft. That is not "just as in Titanic's day". Nor does anyone "have to take their chances with lifejackets". Everyone has a place either in a lifeboat or in a liferaft. DrKiernan (talk) 15:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
OK, I'm happy to defer to you on that point. Prioryman (talk) 07:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Alternate infobox

Sinking of the RMS Titanic
Painting of a ship sinking by the bow, with people rowing a lifeboat in the foreground and other people in the water. Icebergs are visible in the background
"Untergang der Titanic" by Willy Stöwer, 1912
Date14 April 1912 (1912-04-14) – 15 April 1912 (1912-04-15)
Time23:40–2:20
LocationNorth Atlantic Ocean
Coordinates41°43′55″N 49°56′45″W / 41.73194°N 49.94583°W / 41.73194; -49.94583
CauseCollision with iceberg
Participants
Key persons in the sinking
OutcomeShipwrecking of ocean liner
In navigation: improvements to safety
In culture: A Night to Remember (1958 film)
Titanic (1997 film)
Deathsc. 1,500

I don't know if the regular editors of this article knew that there is {{Infobox news event}}, which was designed for articles like this. I started a mockup using that template, as shown here. (Note that the coordinates aren't showing in the title here, but if copied to the article, that would have to be switched back.) One reason I'm preferring using the pre-made infobox is that it's more concise. Several of the items are collapsible lists consisting purely of timelines, which could be added to the article as tables or graphics. (I'm of the school of thought that the infobox is a summary of the article and doesn't contain anything that isn't in the main article itself, but it should be short and sweet.)

One last thought, but I'd move the glossary out of the infobox completely. We have List of nautical terms which can be used, or interwiki links to things like list as needed in the body of the article. Maybe I'm of the "less is more" when it comes to infoboxes; if you need to collapse lists to keep the overall size down, it's too long. Oh, and the infobox has a few options for things like the inquiries that aren't listed now.Imzadi 1979 → 22:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that's not a bad idea. The existing infobox is by far the longest and most complex I've ever seen on a Wikipedia article; I honestly have to wonder who is going to bother clicking on the "show" links (or even realise that they're there). The design doesn't seem very usable to me. I'd be interested to know what other editors think. Prioryman (talk) 23:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
It seems OK. Soerfm (talk) 23:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, which do you mean - the current one or Imzadi's proposed replacement? Prioryman (talk) 00:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh (embarrassing), the new one is far better than mine. Please replace it. Soerfm (talk) 09:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Victims' tragic end.

There are contradictions regarding the victims' final circumstances. Aldridge 2008 p.56 claims almost everyone in the water died very quickly ("within minutes") of cardiac arrest, etc. Whereas Everett 1912 p.167 claims "For an entire hour there had been an awful chorus of shrieks, gradually dying into a hopeless moan". -Should some further clarification of these contradictory accounts be made in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg Holden 08 (talk • contribs) 01:43, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

There's already a lot of material in the section Sinking of the RMS Titanic#Passengers and crew in the water (02:20–04:10). DrKay (talk) 08:36, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes there is, but I'm suggesting less information, not more, by shortening the article through removing the contradictions and deleting the conflicting statements. Let's have one consistent viewpoint, instead of differing statements within the same article.Greg Holden 08 (talk) 10:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not seeing much in the way of contradiction: most people died quickly, some didn't, the last dying about an hour later. The length of the section seems justified to clarify this point. Aldridge doesn't deny there were people who lasted longer; Everett doesn't deny that many people died quickly. But even if it were contradictory, we cannot present our own interpretation or select one viewpoint over another. DrKay (talk) 12:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

game of soccer.

I changed this bit: passengers played a game of 'soccer' to the proper term for the sport, 'football'. This is a British ship, there is no way to know who was the players of this impromptu game. British or US. So let's assume as it is a British ship that they played 'football' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.211.135.0 (talk) 16:50, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Since "soccer" is universally understood and unambiguous (it is used in the UK, where the term originated), it is far clearer than a word that is clearly ambiguous. DrKay (talk) 17:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Addition of 13500 tonns within first 45 minutes

Added by Prioryman at 01:45, 18 February 2012 Does someone has source of that statement? Thanks 86.62.89.225 (talk) Integral

Check the reference - it's from page 112 of Halpern, Samuel & Weeks, Charles (2011). "Description of the Damage to the Ship". In Halpern, Samuel. Report into the Loss of the SS Titanic: A Centennial Reappraisal. It's a pretty simple calculation - a water intake of 5 long tons per second (actually a lower estimate than some I've seen) gives you 13,500 long tons after 45 minutes. Prioryman (talk) 17:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I've got the idea(45*60*5=13500). I thought it was kind of modeling, or something like that. Now it seems very, very rough estimation. Such estimation seems strange for me, beacause:
  • Stream speed should be decreasing while level of water increasing in compartments.
  • Stream speed should be decreased nearly to zero when all first compartments became full — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.62.89.225 (talk) 18:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
You are right of course that the ingress rate will be proportional to the difference between the height of water inside compared to the external depth of the hole, and this is constantly decreasing, but the total amount given over 45 minutes seems reasonable. Rumiton (talk) 01:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
AFAIK, Titanic was designed to survive first four compartments filled. Thus, first 4 compartments should cause settling by bow no more than 3.4 m (11 feet). BTW, does anyone know, which height was required for bulkhead E, to survive that night? It seems to me, that additional 1-2 meters could save ship, or at least save it until rescue. 86.62.89.225 (talk) Integral
Don't forget that it was a dynamic process - the ship was constantly settling by the bow, allowing the water to penetrate steadily further into the ship and cascading down over bulkheads, which didn't extend all the way up to the top deck. See the diagram below, which shows the bulkheads as red lines. Their presence meant that the flooding wasn't linear but progressed in a series of spurts as each successive compartment was flooded. It also meant that the weight of the water was concentrated at the bows, causing the ship to pivot vertically bow-first rather than simply settling on an even keel. Prioryman (talk) 05:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
I can't really agree about the "spurts." Flooding a compartment is just like adding weight to that compartment. If it is 5 tonnes per second, then that is the rate at which weight was being added to that compartment. When it overflowed, the 5 tonnes per second just started to be added to the next compartment aft, which has slightly less of a tipping effect (being further from the bow.) Quite a smooth process, really. Rumiton (talk) 13:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Inflow rate depends on difference between inside and outside water levels. Such difference steadily decreases untill first 5 compartments became full. 86.62.89.225 (talk) Integral
Sorry, I probably expressed myself badly above. What I meant was that the flooding didn't progress evenly from the bottom up, but cascaded from compartment to compartment, bow to aft. That's why the engineers were able to keep the lights on until the last few minutes - their compartment was dry up to the point that the water began cascading over the top of the bulkhead from the next-door compartment. The intermittent nature of the process was illustrated by the angle the ship took as it sank. Note the penultimate paragraph of "Effects of the collision" (with my highlighting): "The flooding did not proceed at a constant pace, nor was it distributed evenly throughout the ship, due to the configuration of the flooded compartments. Her initial list to starboard was caused by asymmetrical flooding of the starboard side as water poured down a passageway at the bottom of the ship. When the passageway was fully flooded, the list corrected itself but the ship later began to list to port by up to ten degrees as that side also flooded asymmetrically." As the following paragraph makes clear, the rate of increase of the ship's down angle similarly fluctuated during the various stages of the sinking. It was a complex process due to the ship's internal architecture. I recall seeing computer modelling of it around the time of the Titanic anniversary a couple of years ago. Prioryman (talk) 07:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Don't you know, is this modeling available to wide audience? I want to understand, was it possible to save ship by increasing bulkhead E height. And if was, which minimal increasing was nessasary for this. 86.62.89.225 (talk) Integral
The modeling was shown in one of the innumerable documentaries shown on British TV around the time of the centenary. Increasing the height of bulkhead E probably wouldn't have helped, as the iceberg damage extended into compartment F. There are a few other considerations to bear in mind. One whether the bulkheads and watertight doors were strong enough to hold back thousands of tons of water. They weren't, at least in some cases; a couple of engineers were killed in boiler room 5 after the door to the flooded boiler room 6 burst. Another is that the effectiveness of the bulkheads relied on all the watertight doors being closed (most were manually operated), and this does not seem to have happened. A third issue is that some of the flooding was reported to have come in from below the bulkheads, as happened in boiler room 4 - perhaps a sign that the ship's underside was also pierced by the ice. Prioryman (talk) 13:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
By points:
  • iceberg damage extended into compartment F - yes, but damage inside compartment F was small, and they could control in with pumps.
  • bulkheads and watertight doors were strong enough to hold back thousands of tons of water - Seems very strange. Bulkheads and watertight doors were designed to deal with all those tons of water. 86.62.89.225 (talk) Integral
I found some more information about this. The documentary I mentioned was the Discovery Channel's Titanic: Anatomy of a Disaster. They got a naval architectural firm to model the stresses caused by the sinking, which identified where the maximum points of stress were. In particular, they found that the stress on the hull caused the forward bulkheads to be compressed vertically as they were squeezed between the keel and the decks, which contributed eventually to their rupture. So although they might have been able to withstand the outward pressure of water, they couldn't withstand vertical compression. Prioryman (talk) 09:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

That sounds right. When a ship's hull first takes on water, it is just like loading a bit more cargo...the ship settles comfortably. But when the weight increases and the hull starts to bend, the internal structure starts to deform. Steel plates bow out and crumple and lose their designed strength. The original strength figures aren't relevant any more, it is no longer the same ship. Rumiton (talk) 14:53, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

sea creature feeding opportunity?

Have there been any predatory sea creatures reported that were drawn to the ship's sinking and maybe killed and eaten some of the victims? like with the USS Indianapolis (CA-35). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.186.22.193 (talk) 01:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

In the high latitude in which Titanic sank, there is not the same density of marine life, including sharks etc. If there were any at all, it doesn't seem likely that any people were killed by them, the freezing water would have beaten them to it. Rumiton (talk) 15:00, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Just checking in

Hi all. Just thought I would introduce myself, as I will be co-operating on the article in future, so please don't mistake me for a newbie. Check my user page and talk for my usual editing areas. Member of Wikiproject Ships and longstanding member of MILHIST. Always been fascinated by, and have knowledge of the Olympic class and especially Titanic. Hope to be of some help. Cheers colleagues. Simon a.k.a. Irondome (talk) 02:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Welcome aboard. I think you'll find most of the issues have been hashed out, but new sources could pop up at any time. Rumiton (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Socket distress signals or flares, and Samuel Halpern as a WP:RS

Thank you for your input DrKay. As it stands, the information given in the article is factually incorrect. As this is a F/A I would expect accuracy in basic facts, including technologies used at the time. The information I am using comes from Samuel Halpern who I believe is a reliable source. The website Titanicology http://www.titanicology.com/ appears to be Mr Halperns own research site, largely made up of essays by Mr Halpern and others who appear to be respectable sources. The information I reproduced is from the testimony from various crew members who appeared at the British enquiry. The presently presented information in mainspace is incorrect. The distress signals were socket mortar fired - shells, made by the Cotton Powder Company of London. I would welcome comment on these points by other colleagues. Regards, Simon. Irondome (talk) 17:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

You'll have to be more precise about what is "incorrect" in the article, because I don't see it. DrKay (talk) 18:07, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Flare (pyrotechnic), which links to the relevant article. It was incorrect also, so I corrected it in terms of Titanic usage. In that the link now leads to the correct information it is resolved. Quite independently, the existing citation given there also led to Sam Halpern's piece on the pyrotechnics used, which was removed here. I would like your opinion as to Titanicology as a repository of reliable sources. I am not referring to http://www.Encylopedia-Titanica which may be more problematic in terms of content. Regards, Irondome (talk) 18:20, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
The issue is not whether titanicology is a reliable source. It is whether it meets FACR criterion 1c for high-quality reliable sources, that would usually mean something published by a third-party or peer-reviewed for a subject where such sources are available. DrKay (talk) 08:01, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
In that case, many of Halpern's articles are published by http://www.titanicinternationalsociety.org which has as it's trustees Charles A Haas and John Paul Eaton, both leading authors on the subject of the Titanic. I am sure they would not lend their reputations to a society which does not strictly adhere to some academic rigor. It also publishes a quarterly journal, Voyage dealing with maritime history, with an accent on the Titanic. It appears to be a respectable journal. Both Eaton and Haas are frequent contributors to its content. In addition, many of Halperns articles appear to be extrapolated from his two books, one of which is used as reference material in this article. I think his work passes muster, within the small community that represents Titanic academia. These articles, Halperns, as well as Eaton and Haas's work, would be useful additional sources to further improve Titanic articles on WP. No article here is set in stone, as I am sure you would agree. The whole project is a work in progress. We just need to clarify their fitness for use under FACR 1c. Regards, Simon Irondome (talk) 01:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Cultural impact and wreckage

Hi DrKay, it is a small matter in the great scheme of things, but why do you feel cultural impact and wreckage belong in the same section? Rumiton (talk) 14:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

They are already in the same sentence: "[an] expedition led by Robert Ballard found the wreck of Titanic, and the ship's rediscovery led to an explosion of interest in Titanic's story." Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout, sections should not be too short nor should every paragraph be given a separate sub-heading. As this article is on the sinking not the wreck or culture, which are covered by the other articles in the series, it is sufficient to summarize the main points and direct readers elsewhere for the details. DrKay (talk) 14:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
OK, I accept those points. The two subjects still seem at odds to me, I'll try to find a better way to group them. Rumiton (talk) 13:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Did the stern go vertical?

I remember watching a documentary on TV a few years ago where they talked about the keel, saying that the ship didn't actually split in half until after it had submerged and that it wasn't, therefore, pulled vertical after detaching. I think it was Discovery or Nat Geo but I can't remember. The closest I can find is this article here: [8] which references a book by Richie Kohler and John Chatterton called "Titanic's Last Secrets". Is there any reason this isn't included in the article? Tiller54 (talk) 18:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The link you gave doesn't say that, it says that it broke up at a shallow angle rather than rising high into the air before breaking up like it did in the film. Either way, the stern would have still been pulled up to a near vertical angle before sinking. G-13114 (talk) 19:49, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

There was a documentary just a few weeks ago "Draining the Titanic" which I believe aired early May 2016 on either The History Channel of NatGeo, where they indicated a possibility that the actual break-up didn't even occur at or near the surface, due to the size of the debris field: had the ship broken up at or near the surface, the debris field would have been more spread out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.16.104.186 (talk) 12:08, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Five or six flooded?

The "Annotated diagram of RMS Titanic" shows green lines on six compartments, meaning six were holed. This is discussed in Walter Lord's book, as well as below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.59.128.48 (talk) 02:57, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Edward Smith's actions - conflicting accounts

I just noticed that this article (great job, btw, it certainly deserves its star) contradicts the one covering captain Edward Smith. The "Sinking of the RMS Titanic" describes Smith's actions as indecisive and it claims that he displayed a lack of crew management skills in the aftermath of Titanic hitting the iceberg, but his biographical article on Wikipedia states the exact opposite - that he performed his duties in an admirable fashion given the extraordinarily difficult circumstances and never lost his cool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.238.151.225 (talk) 09:53, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sinking_of_the_Titanic/Archive_3&oldid=1151014391"