Wikipedia:Peer review/Girl Pat (1935 trawler)/archive1

Girl Pat (1935 trawler)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
.

Not so much a great maritime adventure, more a piece of madcap tomfoolery, with just the possibility of something more sinister behind it, the Girl Pat escapade of 1936 attracted an awful lot of press attention in 1936, a year not exactly lacking in significant events. Oddly, the episode is barely mentioned in any of the social histories of the period, and I am particularly indebted to Tim Riley and SchroCat for providing me with many of the news sources used. No blockbuster this – 4,500 words and a few nice pics. Comments invited on all aspects from all comers. Brianboulton (talk) 17:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

I loved this article, and my recent complaints about the depressing topics you've been choosing for FA are hereby amortised. Very little to add. I've corrected a few typos, which please check, and otherwise:

• "supernumary" – looks very odd to me, but I have read the WP article supernumerary, and I'm sure you know what you're doing.

• You flatter me. My simple spelling mistake (or "typo" as I like to call such) was incorporated into a pipe-link by another editor who, like you, thought I must know what I was doing. For future reference, this is a very dangerouus assumption to make; it is safer to assume the opposite. Brianboulton (talk) 12:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• "parliament" – lower case?
• piping of the Bahamas looks odd with the lower case definite article inside the blue link.
• "British Home Secretary being asked" – gerund wanted, I'd say.

• I've deleted the sentence which added very little and wasn't going anywhere. Brianboulton (talk) 12:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• "The Times editorial" – twice if you please! The Times, God save us, is not some colonial rag, despite its current ownership. It publishes leaders or, if you are feeling posh, leading articles, and not editorials.

• I always get slightly intimidated when you get into Mr Riley mode, so I have done as you suggest, but don't shout at me when I mention that our cosmopolitan readership (which includes Americans) doesn't always follow the nuances of trad Brit usage in matters such as this and might be happier with the demotic equivalent. Brianboulton (talk) 12:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • You're absolutely right, of course, and I withdraw my objection to "editorial". Sorry to shilly-shally. Tim riley talk 15:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• "one of two persons" – as you quoted Nanki-Poo to me, let me quote Pooh-Bah back at you: "They are not young ladies; they are young persons". A roundabout way of saying that it might read more naturally as "two people", or even "two men" unless it was a greengroceress.
• Footnote 3: "Lloyd's" – possessive apostrophe not right, I think. Is it thus in the source?

• Well, the organisation's full name is "Lloyd's of London", with apostrophe (unlike the bank), so I think "Lloyd's" is right. Brianboulton (talk) 12:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Indeed. I think I had some mad syntactical delusion that it needed two possessive apostrophes. Ignore me: I'll be all right in a moment. Tim riley talk 16:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Footnote 5: As the first sentence is "according to", the second one ought to be too, I think.

And that really is my lot. Wikipedia is in your debt for this rollicking article, though it is an absolute disgrace that while SchroCat and I have been flogging our guts out chez Olivier, you've been having a high old time with Girl Pat. Tim riley talk 22:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Many thanks for these entertaining and usually relevant commnets. Attended to, except as indicated. Brianboulton (talk) 12:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

Very enjoyable indeed. A few minor glitches or possibly my misunderstanding:

• "was a temporary media sensation" I'm unaware of any permanent ones. Perhaps "caused a brief media sensation"?

• Not that "brief", since the headlines stretched over six months or so, on a more or less daily basis. and continued intermittently thereafter. I have changed to "caused a media sensation" without reference to transience or brevity. Brianboulton (talk) 17:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• "the engineer returned, nonplussed, to Grimsby." If he went back to Grimsby, how was he nonplussed? I'd see nonplussed if he had hung around at Dover waiting for he knew not what. Possibly, "confused"?
  • I've always been both nonplussed and confused when I've found myself in Grimsby! - SchroCat (talk) 08:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

• • SchroCat's helpful intrevention notwithstanding, the issue here is what is meant by "nonplussed". Traditionally it means surprised, confused, not knowing what's going on, but to an extent its meaning has migrated to something almosed exactly opposite, i.e. insoucient, unfazed etc. Being a fairly elderly geezer educated in the 60s and 70s I only connect with the original meaning, but I have reworded as you suggest, to avoid misunderstanding. Brianboulton (talk) 17:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• " marauders" surely simply thieves.

• Maybe, but "marauders" has I think the right sense of a banditry or piracy possibly, so I'd prefer to keep it. Brianboulton (talk) 17:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• It may be worth mentioning at some point that British Guiana is today Guyana.
• " to Moore's proposal" I might add a "to lose the vessel" to this.
• "minor was vessels" is "was" meant to be "war"?
• You appear inconsistent in capitalisation of "Parliament" (see note 3)--Wehwalt (talk) 11:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you, all fixed now. I'm glad you liked the article. Brianboulton (talk) 17:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the title, I'm fine with the change and wonder if "trawler" is needed. I'm glad you found the comments useful.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Llywrch

Interesting to learn what made the news rags on one side of the Atlantic at the same time Ma Barker & John Dillinger were front page news over here. And the article does a good job of reporting it. However, I have two concerns:

1. In the first sentence, "was a temporary media sensation" This sounds clunky to me. Maybe "was a transient media sensation" or "was a nine days' wonder".

• I agree with you about the clunk, but I don't honestly think that "transient" is any better than "temporary". The matter was in the news for too long to be termed a "nine days' wonder", and was not swiftly forgotten – it lingered in the news for years. So I've chosen a simpler option – see Wehwalt's comments above. Brianboulton (talk) 18:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

1. While reading the article, I constantly wondered why Orsborne do all this? Did he have some plan or goal? Was he compelled to do this out of some kind of mental disability -- say a dissociative disorder? Or was he just a guy with no hope of a better life who did this out of existential despair?

-- llywrch (talk) 21:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• Orsborne gave two different reasons for his actions. In court he claimed he was taking a joyride at his employers' expense, in response to their suggestion that he lose the ship as part of an insurance scam. Much later he said he was acting under secret orders from British Naval Intelligence, in a scheme to undermine General Franco. I find that impossible to believe: the right-wing British government was generally pro-Franco and the security services markedly more so (the commies were the enemy). However, we won't get access to the confidential papers for another 20 years or more, so we'll have to wait to see if there was anything in Orsborne's unlikely claim. Until then, and perhaps thereafter, who knows? One theory is probably as good as another. Thank you for your comments. Brianboulton (talk) 18:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments from SchroCat

I'm struggling to find anything but minor quibbles on this rollocking read! (Minor quibbles dealt with here - fee free to rv with anything you don't agree with). A couple of others have questioned the "temporary media sensation", so I am sure you will have dealt with it by the time you get down to here. One question arises, which is over the name of the article: as there is nothing to stop it, should this not be named [[Girl Pat]], rather than [[Girl Pat (1935 trawler)]], as per WP:NC-SHIP?

More anon when I've got to the end of this very enjoyable and amusing tale! - SchroCat (talk) 08:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Finishing off...

Capture, detention and arrest

• "With Girl Pat been secured and under guard" may need a tweak

Hearings, trial and sentence

• Doesn't the last sentence of the previous section ("They were remanded in custody to await deportation") cover the same ground as the first sentence here ("The Orsborne brothers were held in custody, pending a hearing before the Georgetown magistrates to determine whether they should be deported to face charges in England")?

Aftermath

• I presume "minor was vessels" is supposed to be a "minor war vessels"?

A rollocking good read, highly enjoyable and yet encyclopaedcally writted and neutral throughout. Please drop me a note when you go to FAC. - SchroCat (talk) 10:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, all dealt with except the somewhat vexed question of the title. The trouble is, there have been other boats called Girl Pat, apart from the renowned trawler. The article mentions one that was arrested for the theft of antiquities in Greek waters, in the 1960s. There was another, advertised for sale in December 1948, described as a "1947 35-ft motor sailer". There was also a racehorse of the same name, active but not particularly successful in the 1952–53 period. Of course, none of these is half as notable as the original Girl Pat, but I'm still a bit chary about using the title unadorned. And the added description leaves potential readers in no doubt about the nature of the subject. I will canvass some opinion on this from other reviewers, before deciding what to do here. Brianboulton (talk) 20:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

You're probably right to leave it: if it were HMS Girl Pat I'd suggest removing the post nominal, but as she is just an unadorned name, the title is probably helpful. I've created a redirect page at Girl Pat, just to cover that option. - SchroCat (talk) 23:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Lining up alongside SchroCat on this. We have a consensus, meseems. Tim riley talk 23:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)