Talk:SS Andaste

Shipwrecks Mid‑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

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-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

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

A fact from SS Andaste appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 22 November 2017 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the SS Andaste (pictured) – a hybrid whaleback Great Lakes cargo vessel – disappeared with all hands on Lake Michigan in 1929 and is still listed as unfound?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2017/November. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/SS Andaste.

Wikipedia

Is this wreck a known dive site?[edit]

As it has been tagged for WP:SCUBA. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 14:17, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hasn't been located. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 02:03, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not much point then, I will untag. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 12:57, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution[edit]

reference copied from Hennepin (shipwreck) to SS Andaste. See former's article history for list of contributors. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:34, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Photo date[edit]

In the Infobox, the first photo is dated/captioned "c. 1900" and has the owner name of "Lake Superior Iron Co." painted below the ship's name.

However, in the "History" section, it's stated that the "Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Co." became her new owner in 1898. If this is accurate, then either it took the new owner around TWO YEARS to paint their name over the Lake Superior name or the photo's date needs to be adjusted to "c. 1897" or "c. 1892-97."

What do y'all think? 2600:8800:786:A300:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 06:44, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Water, water everywhere . . .[edit]

In the fourth sentence of the second paragraph in the "History" section it's stated that it was common for a whaleback, or semi-whaleback, ship "to getting a wet deck in storm or gale conditions."

I don't understand why that should be noteworthy since just about any open deck on any ship would get wet "in storm or gale conditions." Unless "getting a wet deck" is possibly jargon/lingo for "becoming easily awash in any storm situation" or for any other type of water event. If so, that either needs to be clarified or linked to a 'place' where maritime/nautical jargon/lingo is explained in layman's terms.

Just an observation. 2600:8800:786:A300:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 07:06, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Purple prose[edit]

While most of this article appears composed of well-researched facts, a few segments are written in a tone inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. Such observations an "Few noticed the workaday vessel" and "Chicago's Lake Shore Drive is used by tens of thousands of motor vehicles daily" seem better used in a memorial. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 20:17, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "Choctaw sank in 1916 as the result of a marine collision in Lake Huron, leaving Andaste as a unique vessel without any sister ships."[edit]

I didn't add this citation needed tag (thanks, GreatLakesShips!), but it got me curious.

Using Google, I found a few sources out there that state that Yuma fell into the same "monitor" category, like NOAA and a couple books (I searched for "Andaste Choctaw Yuma" on Google Books). None of those explicitly call Yuma a sister ship, and the probably unreliable shipbuildinghistory.com shows that Yuma's tonnage was about double the other two.

Given that, I'm inclined to remove the citation needed. Still, Bigturtle, do your sources have anything on this? It's probably worth an explanatory footnote. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:11, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for telling us a bit about the "Yuma"! We need to learn more about this vessel. Boyer and the Michigan Shipwreck Research Association agree that "Andaste's" only true identical sister vessel was the "Choctaw," so that is what this article should say for now. Bigturtle (talk) 23:12, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bigturtle, sorry for resurrecting this old issue, but while I was digging through SS Choctaw's NRHP form, I found that it states that Andaste, Choctaw and Yuma were built to the same design. Although, BGSU confirms that they had size differences.

Also, I noticed that the number of windows on Andaste's and Choctaw's pilothouses is different. Although, I don't know if that is worth adding. GreatLakesShips (talk) 22:23, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]