Wikipedia:Peer review/Costa Concordia disaster/archive2

Costa Concordia disaster

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get this article to FA status. I've already done this once before for this article (I got it to GA based on the feedback).

A preemptive thanks! Any and all input would be greatly appreciated! Cessaune [talk] 04:59, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template. Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 03:22, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

@Cessaune: This has been open for over a month without comment. Are you still interested in comments? Z1720 (talk) 03:05, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, if possible. I guess I caan do a few quid pro quo reviews sometime soon if necessary. Still gotta finish a super-lengthy GA review, so I don't know how soon that'll be. Cessaune [talk] 04:36, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

1. What is meant by head of the engine room? was this the chief engineer? engineer on watch? someone else? · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 12:41, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

• Do we need the call sign, IMO number, and MMSI number? This is an article about the disaster, not about the ship itself.
• Suggest cutting the last few words of the first quote that mentions "cazzo" -- it can't be translated inline easily as it has multiple meanings, but an English-speaking reader won't know it and will have to follow the link. Alternatively you could put a summary of the meaning in a footnote, or perhaps put "[swearing]" after it in the quote. This is handled well in the later quote where you give the various sources' different translations.
• "No mandatory lifeboat passenger evacuation drill had taken place for the approximately 600 passengers who had just embarked prior to the voyage." Does this mean that there should have been an evacuation drill but it was not performed, or just that it was not the case that Costa had implemented a mandatory drill?
• "Some sources report that the ship did not list until 23:15 and, therefore, if Schettino had given the order to abandon ship, the lifeboats could have been launched earlier, allowing the passengers to reach safety." The graph next to this is quite precise and doesn't say there's any doubt about the listing angles, but it's not reconcilable with these sources. If the graph is known to be correct, I think it would be worth making that clear.
• "Staff or 2nd captain": not sure what this means. Is there a position called "staff captain"? Or does it mean that either members of staff, or 2nd captain Bosio...? And what's a second captain? Should this be second officer?
• I'd cut "characterized as a mutiny"; the article only really says "mutiny-like", and it's in the link title as clickbait.
• "Rescued passengers huddle ashore": do we need "huddle"? It's an emotive word. Perhaps just "Rescued passengers on shore"?
• 'into which he claimed he had "fallen".' Suggest removing the quotes per MOS:SCAREQUOTES, and in any case Schettino's claim is bizarre enough that even without the quotes it's ludicrous.
• 'the waters were not completely clear of oil but are "within the legal limits".' Inconsistent tense: were/are.
• I haven't checked the images individually, but if you're planning to take this to FAC I would recommend making sure that the descriptions are cited in the images themselves -- e.g. those in "Images of righting of Costa Concordia". You may also want to add the citation at the end of each caption.
• Suggest joining the last two short paras in "Refloating and removal".
• "This project is also known as phase WP9": not clear what the relevance is here. Is this just the internal name for this phase of the project? If so I'd cut it -- this isn't mentioned again in the article. Or is this a general term used in the industry for this phase?
• There appear to be no sources for some data in the "Passenger nationality" table.
• "told a Senate committee": suggest "told an Italian Senate committee".
• "Germany stopped cooperating with Italy in investigating the accident in December 2015 after the Federal Bureau for Maritime Casualty Investigation was prevented from carrying out a proper investigation by Italian public prosecutors and courts." The phrase "prevented from carrying out a proper investigation" seems like the German POV; is it clear that the Italian sources would agree with describing what happened in this way? If not it might be better to rephrase to make it clear this was what the Germans asserted.
• "three specifications — of his having": per MOS:DASH you can have spaced en dashes or unspaced em dashes, but not spaced em dashes. Also, "specification" doesn't seem a very natural word here -- how about making it "... and for three violations of ..." and then listing them?
• "After the vessel was determined to be beyond economic-repair": is "economic-repair" a term of art? If not, and perhaps even if so, I might suggest rewording: "After the vessel was determined to be uneconomical to repair".
• The quotes from Jacqueline Foster and Brian Simpson don't seem particularly relevant; they had no relevant portfolio and didn't represent a relevant constituency. Were they quoted because of the presence of Britons on the ship? Even that would be marginal.
• In the "Regulatory and industry response" section CLIA's policy change requiring passenger muster drills is mentioned, and then later it's said that several cruise lines now require muster drills. Isn't the latter a requirement because of CLIA's policy change? It's presented as if the two things are unrelated.
• Suggest combining the two short "In 2014" paragraphs in the "Media" section.
• "In January 2013, the municipalities of Isola del Giglio and Monte Argentario were decorated with the highest Italian Civil award". This is in the "Honours and memorial" section. Given that we have this, I don't think we need to include Monti's announcement mentioned at the end of the "Evacuation" section.
• Was the boulder ever removed and established as a memorial?
• The safety regulations section mentions that a muster must be performed within 24 hours of embarkation, but it appears the article doesn't include the embarkation date so it's not possible to tell if this regulation was disobeyed.

Overall I think this is close to FAC-ready. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:08, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

@Cessaune: Did you see the above comments? Z1720 (talk) 00:49, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I just did. Thanks, Mike Christie, for the feedback. Cessaune [talk] 01:42, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

@Cessaune: It has been a month since you have noted Mike's comments above, but haven't edited the article since July. Can this be closed until you have more time to address the concerns, and you can open a new PR when ready? Z1720 (talk) 23:20, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Y Cessaune [talk] 19:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC)