Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Loss of MV Darlwyne/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:35, 27 February 2018 [1].

Loss of MV Darlwyne

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 12:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on this on and off for about 18 months – the desperately sad story of a joyous, celebratory sea trip that went tragically wrong and claimed 31 lives. The boat was unlicensed, overloaded and ill-conditioned, and carried minimal lifesaving and emergency equipment, a man-made disaster if ever there was one. Yet nobody was prosecuted, and the general British public, intoxicated by the country's World Cup football success that weekend, scarcely noticed – except in Cornwall. SchroCat and Linghzi have helpfully added key locations to the Cornwall map, and others provided helpful comments at a recent peer review. Brianboulton (talk) 12:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review All references appear to be of appropriate quality and are consistently cited.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:07, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support I gave my comments at the peer review. The article is of high quality.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:07, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Another from the PR, where my comments were satisfied. A further readthrough shows no remaining issues for me. - SchroCat (talk) 20:22, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Yet another peer reviewer checking in. My comments at PR were few and minor, and after rereading for FAC I find no more points to query. A comprehensive and v. readable article, well and widely sourced. Clearly meets the FA criteria in my opinion. (Later: now signing my comments, a day late. Thank you Linzhi for mentioning the omission.) Tim riley talk 09:22, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
S What Tim riley said. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:18, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My thanks to all the above for their help and support. Brianboulton (talk) 19:11, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support this moving and beautifully written article. I was not moved to suggest any prose suggestions during my read through, this is high quality and emotively written prose of the first order. Ceoil (talk) 02:58, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Two small points, can we say who John Phillips is/was, and the coroner reopened the inquests - should this be singular. Ceoil (talk) 22:28, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Banks does not give further information as to who this John Phillips was – I can't find any internet presence for a designer/sculptor who would fit the circumstances. As to inquest/inquests, both are technically right. There was a single session, but as required by law, 31 separate verdicts were recorded. I'm inclined to leave it. Thank you for your interest and support. Brianboulton (talk) 15:23, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I also searched around on John Phillips and didn't find anything. Ok to assume "local artist" as is implied. Ceoil (talk) 08:57, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:Darlwyne.jpg: is any information provided about the provenance of this image in Banks' book?

Unfortunately, there isn't. This seems to be the only authentic image of the Darlwyne and it appears on several websites as well as Banks's book. For example BBC, Telegraph], both published online after Banks's book. The image on the front of the book, showing a boat similar to Darlwyne wallowing in heavy seas, is a pastiche. On the evidence available the image is not free, hence the fair use rationale. Brianboulton (talk) 15:23, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cornwall_UK_location_map_placenames.png: could the lab cut down the amount of bluespace in this image? This would allow easier reading of the placenames without inordinate scaling. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:28, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will take this up with my helpful associates. Brianboulton (talk) 15:23, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I have read it and reviewed. I find a fully sourced, comprensive article. Excellent.BabbaQ (talk) 08:22, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am most obliged, and glad you appreciated the article. Brianboulton (talk) 15:23, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note to co-ordinators and anyone else passing by. I shall have very little if any online access during the next few days, so in the unlikely event of further comments being added here, there'll be a delay before I can reply. sorry. Brianboulton (talk) 22:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro (talk) 21:35, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.