Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Sinking of the RMS Titanic/archive1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comments from Imzadi1979[edit]

  • I'm not sure that we need to put times in 12-hour format in parentheses after 24-hour format times in the lead. The very first time listed is p.m., and it's obvious that it is from the 24-hour format.
    • I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here? There's only one such conversion in the article, as far as I can see, and that's in the lead. Prioryman (talk) 09:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The conversion is superfluous. Even us "dumb Americans" can figure out the a.m./p.m. equivalent of a time in 24-hour format. When the conversion isn't needed for understanding, it's distracting. Now, something like mileage is a measurement that needs the conversion in place. Imzadi 1979 → 00:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, fair enough. I've taken out the conversion. Prioryman (talk) 23:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the second sentence of the Background section, there is the distance "80 miles". Are these nautical or statute miles? Either way, a metric conversion should be added, but because of the variation between nautical and statute miles, I can't just insert it myself.
    • It's nautical miles. I've added the conversion. Prioryman (talk) 09:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did some copy editing to remove the Americanism "due to", since this article is written in British English.
  • There's a tonnage measurement in the Effects of the collision section that likewise also needs to be clarified and converted. (Long tons or short tons?)
    • A number of sources give this measurement (see [1]) but don't say whether it's long or short. What do you recommend? Prioryman (talk) 09:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, we really should figure out if it's long or short tons so that the appropriate metric tonnage conversion can be added. I think, and don't quote me, that the shipping industry uses long tons because of some convenient conversion between a long ton of seawater and its volume. You'd want to check on that though. Imzadi 1979 → 00:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • The problem is that I honestly don't know, and the sources don't say. I don't know how this can be resolved; picking long over short or vice-versa would have a 50% chance of being wrong, and an arbitrary choice would amount to original research anyway. Given the uncertainty, I'd suggest just leaving it as it is. Prioryman (talk) 23:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "00:05–00:45 – Preparing to evacuate", there's another mileage and another tonnage measurement given without conversions.
    • I've made the mileage conversion, but again the source doesn't say whether the tonnage is long or short. Prioryman (talk) 09:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the references, I would make some changes.
  • Toronto probably doesn't need "Canada" for disambiguation.
  • Chicago doesn't need IL in the Everett reference since it's lacking on the Cox citation.
  • Newfoundland is spelled out in the Gleicher citation, but California, Connecticut, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and United Kingdom are not. As a side note, the name of the province is now "Newfoundland and Labrador".
    • There are standardly-used abbreviations for the latter states/countries, but is there one for Newfoundland? I've added "and Labrador". Prioryman (talk) 09:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • "NL" is the Canada Post abbreviation for Newfoundland and Labrador. Imzadi 1979 → 00:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Winocour reference, "Titanic" should not be rendered in all caps.
    • That's how it is in the original, but I've amended it anyway. Prioryman (talk) 09:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good that you changed it, because our MOS says to do so. Minor typographical changes are acceptable, and standard. MOS:CAPS uses the example of The New York Times reducing their headlines from all caps when they're put them in the archive database. Imzadi 1979 → 00:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "March/April" in the Ballard journal citation should be "March–April".
  • The paper's name is The New York Times.
  • When I helped on the SS Edmund Fitzgerald article, we put every reference to the ship's name in source titles in italics, or if part of an italicized book name, roman text. This is just something to consider.
    • Sounds like a good idea, I've done that too. Prioryman (talk) 09:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, the prose reads well. There's some numbers that are written out that I would convert to numbers instead of words. I can easily support promotion in the future pending input from others and some of these fixes. Imzadi 1979 → 02:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      • FWIW, I don't think short tons have ever been used in the British Merchant Navy. The long ton is 2240 pounds, which is very close to the weight of a cubic metre of seawater (1025kg.) Rumiton (talk) 01:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/Sinking_of_the_RMS_Titanic/archive1&oldid=1083651185"