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. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
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.
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)
In researching this article, I photocopied an extensive article from Darwin's State Reference Library that was written by Allan McInnes (a historian and solicitor) in February 1982. He states that the Gothenburg was originally named the Celt in 1854 and her first owners were Balgarve of Rotterdam and that she was intended to ply between London and Rotterdam. In all my research, I have not come across any mention of the the subject Gothenburg being associated with the Union Castle Link. Perhaps there was another ship with the same name? Spy007au (talk) 11:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, the builder, names and years are correct:
"Celt(I), 1857. Lungley, Deptford, 514 tons. Built in 1855 as the Gothenburg, the Celt was acquired by the Union Line from the North of Europe Steam Navigation Company in 1857..." 
"This ship had been known as the Gothenburg, and used to sail for Sweden from Irongate Wharf near the Tower of London. In order that she might readily fit in with her consorts she was given the more clannish name of Celt." 
That said, there was both a Celt(I) and a Celt(II). Celt(I) was also called Gothenburg, however it appears that it was the other ship, Celt(II), that was lengthened in 1866. Also see this bio of the Union Castle Line, which clears up the Rotterdam ownership issue, I think. Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:18, 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)
Have carried out some further research. McInnes also stated (additionally to the above) in his article that, "for 12 years after leaving the stocks Celt was classed A1. In 1862 Blackwood of Melbourne purchased her for the Australian trade...... In 1865 her ownership was amended to McMechan & Blackwood". In contrast, Wilson stated, "She was classed A1 at Lloyds and intended for the UK-Baltic trade, her first owners being the North of Europe Steam Navigation Company....... In June 1862 she was purchased by McMeckan, Blackwood & Co of Melbourne". Not sure if this helps, but it may provide some leads/answers. Hope it helps. Spy007au (talk) 08:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
See Ronald Parsons, Australian Coastal Passenger Ships, the author, Magill SA, 1981, page 86. Apparently, Gothenburg was lengthened and refitted in Adelaide in 1873 (not 1866 as previously thought). Does this help? Spy007au (talk) 13:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Another to verify that if were two ships would be to find some history for the other ship after the Australian one sank. Socrates2008 (Talk) 06:22, 23 March 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.
The lead is too short FA requires at least two paragraphs explaining the topic in summary form. At the moment this lead does not do that.
The writing needs further reviewing. Its not bad, but has several minor problems which should be addressed.
The issue about the ship's service at Celt is interesting, and should be investigated. I don't feel such information is immediately vital for GA, but this should be explored for further development and it should be conclusively established whether this ship is the one in question or not. If it is then please include more information.
The lists. I am all too aware of the debate on Wikipedia regarding the appropriateness of lists of non-notable fatalities. I tend to fall into the group who supports their inclusion, but I'd really like to see some form of related project maintaining them rather than their exisitance as full blown articles in their own right. A couple of other suggestions to this end involve a) the idea of collapsible tables which will allow lists to be present without overwhelming articles and b) those seeking the retention of the lists would do well to copy them to a user page before they are deleted. That way the information will still exist when the issue is decided for once and all, will still be accessible to those interested but will not run the risk of being deleted as unencyclopedic. In promoting this, I am deliberately avoiding the issue of the survivors list as that is something for the article's main contributors to decide. I believe that the article reaches GA quality with or without the list.--Jackyd101 (talk) 08:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for doing this review so promptly, and for your very useful and insightful input. I hope too that this article might be improved to FA status, as there are scant few ship-related articles at the moment in that category. Your idea about a collapsible list is novel and certainly worthy of consideration. Anyway, we'll keep at it, and hopefully get to the bottom of the few outstanding issues very soon. Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
Why don't we rather get the whole article to FA? (It's the story behind the picture that makes it interesting.) Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
FA sounds good to me. Mjroots (talk) 15:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Why not do both - getting the photo on 'Today's featured picture' would be a great way to promote the article and perhaps some additional help for FA status? Spy007au (talk) 02:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I think I got all single linked years and decades. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - 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.[?]Done — Bellhalla (talk) 16:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.[?] Specifically, an example is 75 km.Done — Bellhalla (talk) 16:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
The script has spotted the following contractions: couldn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.Done — Bellhalla (talk) 16:04, 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.