Talk:SS Andrea Doria

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the SS Andrea Doria article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

SS Andrea Doria is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 28, 2005.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 6, 2005	Peer review	Reviewed
August 7, 2005	Featured article candidate	Promoted
April 7, 2009	Featured article review	Demoted

Current status: Former featured article

Ships

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

Shipwrecks High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shipwrecks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of shipwreck-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ShipwrecksWikipedia:WikiProject ShipwrecksTemplate:WikiProject ShipwrecksShipwreck articles

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Shipwreck-related priority open tasks:

To Do

Lady Elizabeth (1879)
- Clean up typos Currently working on it-----Completed!
- Improve grammar
- Add any additions if needed Still adding more information
- Discuss desired additions -None

Italy Mid‑importance

	Italy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Cape Cod and the Islands B‑class Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
B	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Massachusetts portal This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts - Cape Cod and the Islands (assessed as Low-importance).

Missing sources

The section about "Litigation and determination of fault: 1956–1957" contains a list of unsourced statements. Wikipedia is as good as its sources. No sources, no value. Just babble. The section should be removed. 2001:B07:646B:4D36:1542:76B6:FC17:40EC (talk) 15:26, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Or we could just add tags requesting additional soucing (there is one ref there already). Better that than just deleting all that content. And I'm not sure why you call it "babble"... it's quite understandable. - wolf 17:56, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article treats speculation that Stockholm's radar display was set to the wrong range as likely, but this has been convincingly challenged by Halpern (2008)

Several passages in this article mention the speculation that the radar display on Stockholm was set to a range of 5 miles but interpreted as if it had been set to 15 miles. This speculation, which is repeated in several sources, originated from the article "The Andrea Doria–Stockholm Disaster: Accidents Don't Happen", by John C. Carrothers in the August 1971 issue of the United States Naval Institute's Proceedings. Note that this speculation was always denied by the third mate who was commanding Stockholm when the collision occurred. Samuel Halpern's 2008 analysis of the accident, "An Objective Forensic Analysis of the Collision Between Stockholm and Andrea Doria", argues (convincingly, to my mind) that Stockholm's radar display was set correctly, and that Carrothers had misinterpreted Stockholm's course recorder track. Although this source is self-published, it was created for a presentation at the Maine Maritime Academy and presumably accepted by them; also, it has since been cited in some published sources. It seems to me that the article should at least mention this disagreement, rather than treating the Stockholm radar display speculation as likely truth as it does now. Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 03:47, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't say "today". Say when.

One passage in the article reads as follows:

"Stockholm's bow was replaced in New York at a cost of $1 million. Today, the former Stockholm sails as MV Astoria and is registered in Portugal. She is the oldest ocean liner still in service."

But that passage contains a reference to something written in 2019. Who knows whether the former Stockholm is still in service in late 2023 ?

It is much better to state at least what year a given statement — that may be dependent on time — is true. It is a very bad idea to write "today" since someone may be reading that four or 10 or 20 years later, when a statement may no longer be true.

Removal of reference in fiction

I've removed the following content from the "Fiction" section under "Books":

In Elora Maxwell's The Shore of Forever (2023), the sinking of Andrea Doria is told from the perspectives of three characters: Eloisa Nicoletti aboard the SS Andrea Doria, Arden Lund aboard the MS Stockholm, and Adeline Darbonne aboard the Île de France.

This was added by an IP address. In one of the edit summaries, they say that they wrote the novel they are referencing (see here) and then went on to add the book's Amazon page as a reference (see here).

I've removed this reference since I feel it violates several Wikipedia policies/guidelines including WP:COI, WP:PROMO, WP:OR and WP:RS. If anyone else would like to add their two cents, I'd be willing to discuss it here. My Pants Metal (talk) 15:15, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, WP:OR probably doesn't apply here since it's a work of fiction. Still, I think the other policies apply. My Pants Metal (talk) 16:15, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with removal Lyndaship (talk) 16:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with removal, also Cuprum17 (talk) 17:07, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hello guys 38.21.188.23 (talk) 22:24, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Litigation and determination of fault

Why is this not mentioned in the section on litigation and determination of fault? It would seem to be a major factor, rather like driving in the opposing lane? "To save time, the Stockholm set a homeward course south of the Nantucket Lightship and twenty miles north of the recommended eastbound course for ships leaving the United States, placing the Stockholm directly in the path of inbound westward traffic, a violation of the 1953 North Atlantic Track Agreement to which the Swedish American Line was a signatory.[16]" Bill (talk) 18:49, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]