# Talk:PS Washington Irving

Surely Wikipedia cannot allow language such as "negro" to be used when describing African-Americans ! Especially considering this page is linked on the frontpage. 
89.213.1.85 (talk) 22:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

In the context of the time (early 20th century) about which the article pertains, it is not racist as the word "Negro" is what was used in the New York Times article being cited.  Note that the Negro article talks about this change over time.  Certainly, very few would use this word today, but at the time, it was the norm and not considered racist.  WilliamKF (talk) 22:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
That said, since the intro wasn't directly from the olden era, I changed it to black, the modern term.--Bedford 22:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. I understand that historically it was used thouroughly however as this is a modern encyclopedia and the article is not quoting directly from a source the use of a more PC word is in order. 22:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.213.1.85 (talk)  

Okay, what about "messboy", I would consider that to have negative connotations today? WilliamKF (talk) 23:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
How old was he? Pyrope 23:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I've written a number of steamboat articles, and I'm pretty sure that "messboy" was a title people were given regardless of their age.  At the time it was not regarded as pejorative, I think now it certainly would be.  I changed the job title to "steward" which was also used then, my suspicion is that "steward" was actually more of a higher rank, but it is better than the alternative.  Actually, I think "steward" alone without note of race would be the better usage now.Mtsmallwood (talk) 04:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
That was what I was getting at. If he was under 16 and worked in the mess then the term is entirely neutral, but not otherwise. Pyrope 13:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The article (and the referenced source) describes the engines as having "cylinders measuring 45 inches × 70 inches × 7 foot stroke". This is one two many dimensions for the cylinders (unless they were oval, which would be quite remarkable). I suspect that it was a double expansion engine with 45 inch diameter high pressure cylinders and 70 inch diameter low pressure cylinders -- both with a seven foot stroke. As huge as this seems today it would be typical for the period. Ferritecore (talk) 01:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Typically double expansion steam engine sizes will be given with the interior diameter of the high pressure cylinder first, and the low pressure cylinder second, this is called the "bore".  The high pressure cylinder always has a smaller bore than the low pressure.  The low pressure cylinder can be huge, as on this vessel The length of the cylinder is called the "stroke".Mtsmallwood (talk) 04:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I think we are in agreement on all significant points. I think the cited source garbled the info from its source, and the wikipedia article copies the garble. I conjecture that actual engine had 45" HP, and a 70" LP cylinders with a 7 foot stroke. I'm not inclined to edit the article to include my conjecture. Ferritecore (talk) 11:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Does this possible cite help? WilliamKF (talk) 17:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Esentialy identical, substituting the word "by" for the "X" symbol. There is probably an original source of this garble that everybody has been copying. I think I'll replace the first "X" with the word "and": "45" and 70" cylinders with a 7 foot stroke". It is the only interpretation that makes sense. It can't be less correct than what is there now, and is probably more correct.Ferritecore (talk) 00:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Here is a 1925 cite by Dayton that is as far back as I have found (close to the date the boat was built). WilliamKF (talk) 15:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Washington Irving (sidewheeler)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
GA review (see here for criteria)
The article needs some corrections in order to pass to GA.
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 
 The lead section should summarize the entire article content. Additionally there is information in the lead that is not in the body of the article. The use of citations in the lead section is optional however, there is currently overkill there.
I've addressed this. WilliamKF (talk) 01:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
There is a large gap in the history of the ship between its launching and the sinking incident; 1912–1926. What happened during those years?
I can find very little on this middle period.  I've added as much as I can locate after scouring the Internet. WilliamKF (talk) 01:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
This is often a common problem that I've run into myself. I'll consider the content passable for this issue but it's possible that someone else may disagree in the future. I'd recommend trying to find further information.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
The article is "photo heavy" in that the photos are overwhelming the text of the article. You should decide which pics aren't really needed.
I've dropped one of the photos. WilliamKF (talk) 01:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
I'm placing this article on hold until the issues are addressed. --Brad (talk) 21:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Please let me know if any issues remain. WilliamKF (talk) 01:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Looks better but I'm having some second thoughts on the prose now. I went in and did some copy editing myself but the article needs an experienced editor to go over it. If you have someone in mind please ask them to look at it. Alternatively I can try again myself. --Brad (talk) 20:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
I do not have anyone in mind, your improvements look good. WilliamKF (talk) 00:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
I copy edited another round and its as good as I can make it. I will be passing the article shortly. --Brad (talk) 04:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

From the "Characteristics" section of this article we find the claim made by two cited references that:

it was the largest passenger-carrying riverboat ever built. (McDowell, Michael P., Passenger Liners of New York Shipbuilding Corporation, Camden) (Adams, Arthur G. (1996), The Hudson Through the Years, Fordham University Press, p. 154, 182, 187, 191, & 314, ISBN 0823212025)
There are at least two vessels with claims to being the largest steam riverboat: The Mississippi River (and tributaries such as the Ohio River) plying sternwheeled American Queen and the Hudson River plying sidewheeler Washington Irving.  Here is a comparison table of size metrics: 67.86.75.96 (talk) 22:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the American Queen is larger than the Washington Irving was and I would like to rewrite the sentence in the "Characteristics" section of this article to add a footnote and instead read:
it was the largest passenger-carrying riverboat built at the time of its construction.[n][3][7]
n. The Washington Irving was not exceeded in size until the June 1995 maiden voyage of the American Queen that was only 4 feet (1.2 m) longer, 42 feet (13 m) wider, and less than 3% larger in gross tonnage.  The American Queen's overnight staterooms could carry only less than 10% of the passengers that the day sailing Washington Irving could carry.

I hope that rewrite is acceptable. 67.86.75.96 (talk) 00:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I have added the proposed rewording and footnote in the article. 67.86.75.96 (talk) 15:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
"6000 passengers"? I doubt it! At 100 pounds a head, that's 600,000 pounds of people on a 400 ton boat. If most were adults they would total over a million pounds. That's 500 tons. Somebody moved a decimal point!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.165.69.43 (talk) 13:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC) 
"6000 passengers"? I doubt it! At 100 pounds a head, that's 600,000 pounds of people. If most were adults they would total over a million pounds. That's 500 tons. Somebody moved a decimal point!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.165.69.43 (talk) 13:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC) 
Not "largest": The whole size issue is inaccurate and apparently a mistake in converting an accurate largest passenger carrying certification to size. And, yes, the vessel was certified for 6,000 with a possible capacity for 1,400 more based on deck space and carrying capacity. I have not researched it, but it is likely the certificate was based on a "safe" number needing evacuation in fire or emergency and 1,400 more just "stuck" if it had even been sought. On size, see below. Palmeira (talk) 02:47, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

The vessel, as a day boat without sleeping or cargo accommodation, had a license for 6,000 passengers that was then a world record. It was not the largest such vessel—even on the Hudson. For example, International Marine Engineering, Volume 18, July 1913 issue pages down from the feature on Washington Irving has a shorter description of the overnight steamer, running the same route for the Hudson Navigation Company, steamer Berkshire. That vessel was a five deck 440' X 90' vessel with 30' paddle wheel diameter as compared with Washington Irving's 416.5' X 86.5' with 24.5' paddle dimensions. Then Berkshire had 450 first class staterooms, limited 2nd class accomodations and a sort of steerage dormitory, one for 46 men to starboard and 44 women to port, plus crew accommodations and some freight space. Palmeira (talk) 02:39, 13 December 2014 (UTC)