Talk:SS Gothenburg

message: Although I realise there are two on going issues, I feel happy enough with the article to pass for GA. Effectively, this is a well-written and well sourced article which adequately covers the topic and makes for very interesting reading. If the intention is to take this article further then I have a few suggestions of things which need to be improved if the contributors are hoping to take this to FA. I also have some suggestions regarding the two outstanding issues.
*The lead is too short FA requires at least two paragraphs explaining the topic in summary form. At the moment this lead does not do that.
*The writing needs further reviewing. Its not bad, but has several minor problems which should be addressed.
*The issue about the ship's service at Celt is interesting, and should be investigated. I don't feel such information is immediately vital for GA, but this should be explored for further development and it should be conclusively established whether this ship is the one in question or not. If it is then please include more information.
*The lists. I am all too aware of the debate on Wikipedia regarding the appropriateness of lists of non-notable fatalities. I tend to fall into the group who supports their inclusion, but I'd really like to see some form of related project maintaining them rather than their exisitance as full blown articles in their own right. A couple of other suggestions to this end involve a) the idea of collapsible tables which will allow lists to be present without overwhelming articles and b) those seeking the retention of the lists would do well to copy them to a user page before they are deleted. That way the information will still exist when the issue is decided for once and all, will still be accessible to those interested but will not run the risk of being deleted as unencyclopedic. In promoting this, I am deliberately avoiding the issue of the survivors list as that is something for the article's main contributors to decide. I believe that the article reaches GA quality with or without the list.--Jackyd101 (talk) 08:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for doing this review so promptly, and for your very useful and insightful input.  I hope too that this article might be improved to FA status, as there are scant few ship-related articles at the moment in that category.  Your idea about a collapsible list is novel and certainly worthy of consideration.  Anyway, we'll keep at it, and hopefully get to the bottom of the few outstanding issues very soon. Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Review

message: I was considering nominating the the photo of Gothenburg's "Turtle Shell Roll" as a featured picture under the history heading. It appears to meet the criteria. Any thoughts? Spy007au (talk) 08:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't we rather get the whole article to FA?  (It's the story behind the picture that makes it interesting.) Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: FA sounds good to me. Mjroots (talk) 15:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why not do both - getting the photo on 'Today's featured picture' would be a great way to promote the article and perhaps some additional help for FA status? Spy007au (talk) 02:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Turtle Shell

message: </noinclude><noinclude>The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
*Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
*Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
** I think I got all single linked years and decades. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automated peer review in prep for FA nom 

message: After thought, I am reverting the section deleted by User:Nick-D. My reasoning is set out below:
Firstly, as per Wiki guidelines (Wikipedia:Notability), notability does not directly affect the content of articles, but only their existence. Clearly, the article SS Gothenburg should exist and therefore, there is no reason to delete a section beacuse someones opinion thinks it is not notable enough.
Secondly, the issue of survivor, passenger and crew pages was discussed in detail before being nominated for GA review. The outcome of discussions was to keep the information, but without overwhelmin the article and as such, it was agreed to transpose these lists onto collapsable lists, which was done.
Lastly, in my opinion, SS Gothenburg has a direct historic relationship to the city of Darwin. Many streets, places and a suburb are named after people that both died and survived the Gothenburg tragedy. If the names of those people are good enough to have put into books and articles, then in my view, it is good enough for Wikipedia.
Regards, Spy007au (talk) 23:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert deleted section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on SS Gothenburg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090602075409/http://www.qm.qld.gov.au/features/shipwrecks/gothenburg.asp to http://www.qm.qld.gov.au/features/shipwrecks/gothenburg.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:51, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on SS Gothenburg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.queenslandhistory.com/meston7.htm
*Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/65v4vjCtJ?url=http://www.nt.gov.au/administrator/pdf/cv/1876_price.pdf to http://www.nt.gov.au/administrator/pdf/cv/1876_price.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080206005507/http://www.ntlib.nt.gov.au/tracy/advanced/History_Cyclones.html to http://www.ntlib.nt.gov.au/tracy/advanced/History_Cyclones.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:35, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: In 1894 both Adelaide newspapers reported the death of a Gothenburg survivor not mentioned in the article, Henry Morgan, on 16 September 1894. His age was given as 55 and was thought to be a ship's carpenter. The story was immediately debunked by P. J. Hogan, but worth a mention here.
::Others later claimed to be survivors were (1) "Doom Foik" (spelling dubious) of Timor, living in Peterborough, and (2) an unnamed son of Alexander Tolmer, with the Wearing party. 
Curiously though, an indisputable survivor, James Campbell, died a fortnight later, though "died shortly after rescue from ill effects of exposure" in this article's Comments column, supported or prompted by Hogan's assertion in the same 1894 letter that only two survivors had died so far: Harris and Campbell, needs further investigation.
Curiouser and curiouser. In the same week, J. J. Fitzgerald, one of the "Gothenburg heroes", survived another shipwreck, that of the Rodondo. Doug butler (talk) 15:51, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  19 years later