No Wikipedia has an intentionally narrow definition of vandalism given the alltoohuman failing of labeling anything contradictory to ones cherished point of view as disruptive behavior These edits are not obscene they do not constitute examples of crude humor and they are not obvious nonsense No portion of the article was deleted without explanation In absence of such behavior guidelines urge us to assume good faith But are they good edits The quality of edits on Wikipedia is established through consensus among editors within a framework of policy guidelines generally accepted conventions of good writing rounded out by a collection of interesting and sometimes contrary essays Consensus is the key word unless an edit is obviously bad editors should not act unilaterally in reverting themThis is not a hardandfast rule but a goodbehavior approach to consensus building Some editors engage in bold edit bold revert talk page discussion cycles a somewhat more dramaprone way of arriving at consensus See Quote above My own opinion on the value of these edits are in the order that they appear in edit diff  Weather conditions Comes from a Stowe quote in the ESPN reference Is Wikipedia on solid grounds in writing as if those conditions were actually extant Probably not Its Stowes quoted observation to ESPN and not an independent observation that conveys weather conditions to this article  No wind instruments No backing reference According to verifiability policy it is the responsibility of the editor introducing a change here  that can be challenged to furnish a backing reference supporting the change No reference establishing how the expedition was equipped has been provided a general reader of the encyclopedia cannot check this fact An excessively polite editor might tag this alteration with  but if Jimmy Wales had his way it should simply be removed   Turned over v Knocked on its side  The underlying source by Doswell employed the phrase  All of a sudden the entire boat turned completely over sideways and slammed into the water within seconds  The new wording seems to adhere to Doswells wording more closely than the old article wording did in no manner can Doswells language can be construed as a  rotation of the hull I have one small technical issue this language should be before the Doswell citation tag not after it a casual reader would be mislead into thinking that this material is based on the following New York Times source   Reasons for cancellation Even before the copy changes the sentence has been unreferenced and open to challenge See the second point above Nichols Daily News piece Epic Trip or Con Cruise does collaborate on prevoyage financial difficulties as reported by Stowe To my mind attribution to Stowe is valid here    Moving from Pier  v Moving from Pier  according to Stowe  Williams New York Times piece on the Hudson River Park development does not quote Stowe so according to Stowe has no support in that particular reference Williams reports that a company called Pier  Maritime owner of an old railroad barge was vacating the pier without contest The Williams article does not make a direct connection with Stowe or the Schooner Anne to this railroad barge To make that connection one has refer to Stewarts earlier New York Times article On the Waterfront at Least for Now That article connects Pier  Maritime to John Krevy and that Stowe docked his boat there Technically citation tags to both references should follow the passage Taken together both New York Times articles establish the events that Pier  closed by inference all habitues of the railroad barge had to go elsewhere Stowe isnt in the loop here its not Stowes utterances but the reporting of the New York Times that establishes the causality of the move The edit is inaccurate and makes the passage more wordy       Ozone Depletion The quote is valid but it is from a WikipediaNo ori