This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the SS Gothenburg article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
SS Gothenburg has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 6, 2008. The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that many streets in Coconut Grove, Northern Territory, Australia are named after victims of the shipwreck of SS Gothenburg off the coast of Queensland in 1875? | ||||||||||
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on February 24, 2009, February 24, 2010, February 24, 2012, February 24, 2015, February 24, 2017, and February 24, 2020. |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
To-do list for SS Gothenburg: |
Appears that this ship started life as the Gothenburg (1855), then became the Celt (1857), then the Gothenburg once again (1866). Would be good if her UK history could be expanded further (e.g. I get the impression she may have been a troopship for the Crimean War, and given the Union Castle Link, probably operated the route to the Cape of Good Hope for a while.) Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
The bit that I think needs to be clarified is change of ownership in 1862 to McMerkan, Blackwood & Co. i.e. from this point forward, the ship's history is undisputed, while from 1855 to 1857, there are also good references for a ship called Gothenburg/Celt(I). However the link between these two pieces of history is currently tentative: I've searched, but cannot a text that explicitly states who McMerkan, Blackwood & Co purchased her from, or who the Union Castle ship was subsequently sold to after she was traded in for Celt(II). So until unless this link is established for sure, we could indeed be talking about two different Gothenburgs. What makes this more tricky is that, if it transpires that these are not the same ship, a number of historians and texts have already assumed along the way that they are. Thoughts, anyone? Socrates2008 (Talk) 04:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
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.
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)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 75 km, use 75 km, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 75 km.[?]You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Bellhalla (talk) 15:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on SS Gothenburg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add ((cbignore))
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add ((nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot))
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:51, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:35, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
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.
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)