Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/Marchioness disaster/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Marchioness disaster

[edit]
Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

For those who remember it, the Marchioness disaster was a shocking occurrence. 51 people died after a large dredger ran over a night-time pleasure boat hosting a birthday party. After such a loss, the victims' families were treated shoddily by a stony-hearted bureaucracy: requests for an inquiry were denied; the hands were needlessly removed from the bodies; families were denied access to the remains; compensation was derisory. It took eleven years for decency to prevail in the form of an in-depth inquiry with far-reaching recommendations. It's the thirtieth anniversary of the tragedy this August, and time we ensured the article is the best it can be. - SchroCat (talk) 12:27, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TR

[edit]

Grim reading. I think you have the proportions of the narrative right, and the events are recounted clearly. These few comments are on minor stylistic points, by and large:

  • Lead
    • "where it was hit again" – but in the main text you follow the convention of using "she" as the pronoun for a ship.
    • as they had not directly interviewed anyone" – "they" being the Marine investigators rather than the families: theoretically ambiguous as the text stands. And can one indirectly interview anyone?
  • 0:00 am – 7:00 am
    • "As per usual procedure" – a bit slangy? Perhaps "In conformity with the usual procedure" or "In accordance ..."?
  • Inquests and inquiries
    • Link to Westminster: might the City of Westminster be a better link than Westminster here?
    • "the then-Transport Secretary" – not sure I'd hyphenate this.
    • Para beginning "In 1992 the families of the victims..." – in the last two sentences I am confused about whether there was one or more than one inquest proposed.
    • "Following the 1997 election that brought the Labour Party to power" – as opposed to the 1997 election that didn't? I think you want a restrictive relative clause here: Following the 1997 election, which brought the Labour Party to power, ..."
    • "He reported in February 2000" – "He" being Clarke, rather than Prescott. Better to use the surname for clarity rather than the pronoun.
    • "Focussing on Henderson" – "focussing" is not strictly wrong, in that some dictionaries admit it, but it is rather horrible. The normal "focusing" is much nicer. (Another "focussing" later, in the Aftermath section.)
  • Compensation
    • "proven" – a word used in Scottish and American law, but in English I think "proved" is the usual form.

All rather trivial points, one feels, having read this tragic article, but it's as well to get the prose as right as one can. I hope these few comments are of use. Tim riley talk 18:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Brianboulton

[edit]

I have a couple of general points, and a few minor drafting issues in what is generally a tightly written account of a truly appalling event:

  • Henderson emerges as a highly dubious character, and I am puzzled by two particular factors. First, that his heavy drinking immediately prior to the fateful voyage was treated as an irrelevance. Secondly, the fact that he evidently used forgeries to help him gain his Master's certificate still drew the conclusion that he "met all the service and medical fitness requirements". It seems very odd that he should escape all culpability for the disaster; it would be interesting to know what factors were deemed to stand in his favour.
  • The drinking was not an irrelevance, I think, but as the police breathalyser test result showed he was not under the influence, there was nothing a court could have done about it. I've added some extra information from Clarke that gives a little more context. Ditto on the forgeries: although he was guilty of that in 1986, it was not considered a reason to remove his licence in 2001. Hopefully the additions I've made to those two points show the reasoning behind the two decisions. - SchroCat (talk) 21:27, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concerning the gruesome detail of hands being removed from bodies: it is not clear what purpose was served by this in terms of identification except for cases where fingerprints were on file, surely a small chance among the thirty or so victims. I would have thought that other evidence - clothing, personal effects, dental records etc would have been rather more effective.
  • Drafting:
  • The noun "cover-up" needs a hyphen
  • In the 5th paragraph of the Inquests and inquiries section the phrasing "without neither company admitted any liability" is garbled. I suggest replace "neither" with "either" and "admitted" with "admitting". Or, alternatively, change "without" to "although".
  • In the same paragraph, I would insert "which recommended" before "that criminal charges...", otherwise there is difficulty in parsing the sentence.

That's all I can find - I hope these points are helpful. A very detailed account of an event still fresh in the memory - was it really 30 years ago? It is all the more vivid in my mind since, the week before the accident, I was on a similar trip on that part of the river, on a similar craft (could it even have been the Marchioness?). Brianboulton (talk) 20:27, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Brian. I was amazed that it was 30 years ago - it was only when I glanced at this when I was doing Princess Alice that I realised the anniversary. I've been on a couple of similar parties on similar craft, and on each one the word "Marchioness" has had people looking round at the exits and shuddering. - SchroCat (talk) 21:27, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Marchioness_disaster/archive1&oldid=886501010"