2021 Suez Canal Obstruction

Not sufficiently reliable to be added as an External link, but is very clear: [1] Perhaps a similar video, from a more reliable source, could be found? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:25, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

News item, an hour ago

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/3/28/tugs-dredgers-still-work-to-refloat-ship-blocking-suez-canal ordered preparations for the possible removal of some of the ship’s cargo to help refloat it,

“The rudder was not moving and it is now moving, the propeller is working now, there was no water underneath the bow, and now there is water under it, and yesterday there was a four-metre deviation in the bow and the stern.”

However, two SCA sources told Reuters news agency that a mass of rock had been found at the bow of the ship, complicating salvage efforts. Peter K Burian (talk) 15:43, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

That is quite shocking news. May explain why the order to prepare for container unload has been made. That would take weeks, if it is technically even possible? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:47, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
They would most likely have to load the containers onto a separate ship, and then transport them, but then you'd still have the blocked canal to deal with. Sincerely, Deauthorized. (talk) 17:21, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

 

 

Sorry for the WP:FORUM, but is there floating machinery that could do that job, anywhere in the world, and is the canal wide enough to accommodate it? Otherwise, the machinery would need to be built, from scratch, on the canal bank? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Crane vessels can do it and would easily fit in the canal width, but not many have enough height for this problem. The salvage operators will know where to get them, and might have had one or two on the way, just in case. . . dave souza, talk 11:59, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't think there are helicopters in the world powerful enough to handle even one of the containers. The recovery team will most likely have to use a crane to remove cargo, which will most likely add days to the operation. Sincerely, Deauthorized. (talk) 17:38, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Anyway all the ships which were too close to the Canal to divert will be stuck there for a while (unless they decide to take the route around Africa). But we can leave the speculation and discussion of difficulties about recovery to the newspapers? This parenthesis, while interesting, has lasted just long enough. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
I think I'd rather wait until more information about this rock becomes available. Just to be sure. Sincerely, Deauthorized. (talk) 18:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the reminder, RandomCanadian. I which case I won't tell Sincerely, Deauthorized. that the Mil Mi-26 can lift 20 tonnes. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Unfortunately the containers weigh 30 tons. Stupid girl (talk) 05:07, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Containers are about 4 tonnes empty, and up to 30 tonnes filled, so the very possibility would depend on what's in those containers. Getting helicopters to fly a huge number of missions, likely in high winds and sandstorms, is not very practical. . . dave souza, talk 11:59, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Many thanks, Dave. I trust you will get a severe scolding from RandomCanadian for such informative and pictorial WP:FORUM. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:08, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
No, don't worry. It's just that while this is interesting; strictly none of it could have been included in the article (and now that all of this has passed without needing such shenanigans, it's all very much for naught). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:39, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Not really offtopic, as you'll have noticed I've linkified the mention of floating cranes which was already in the article. Many people seem to have thought helicopters were a possible answer, so worth having it on the talk page in case it's raised by someone. As long as we don't get on to the QAnon Hillary theory. . . . dave souza, talk 13:24, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Absolutely. It seems some folks have difficulty in seeing such imbecilic claptrap for what it really is. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:12, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
I've been monitoring the various COVID-19 pages and well yes I'm sadly very used to these kinds of people... Anyway, since we don't have to deal with those here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:49, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your work on this, was half-kidding but glad to say it's not notable so don't mention it. . .dave souza, talk 17:28, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
@Dave souza: Thanks for your comment here. I also wondered why they didn't just get some Chinooks and dump the containers on the shore or maybe another ship, as I've seen Chinooks carrying a shipping container. The Chinook has a maximum payload of 10,886 kg according to the article, so indeed depending on the contents (depending on what's in them, containers could perhaps be emptied or partially emptied first) it may have been technically possible. It's not an entirely stupid idea and for $400 million an hour you'd think many things are possible. (and my guess is that this may have been plan C) But the weather could be a compelling reason not to do this - the only thing worse than a stranded container ship is a stranded container ship with a helicopter crashed into it. A quick search actually shows reliable sources discussing the very idea: The Wall Street Journal suggests tandem rotor Chinook CH-47s could be used, but as Aerotime Hub noted last week, though the CH-47 is a world-renowned heavy-lift workhorse, it can only handle loads of less than 10,886 kilograms, which likely wouldn’t cut it for much of the Ever Given’s cargo:[2]. We may be able to mention it in the article on that basis. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 18:32, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz:, Aerotime Hub covers the basics pretty well, we expect the wsj to be rubbish about climate science but that really casts doubt on their business journalism. Partially unloading containers is not merely "a difficult and time-consuming endeavor", its wildly impractical when the only accessible container doors are about 40 metres up on the exposed edges of the stack. They don't mention helicopter maintenance, which apparently is needed after each mission at one mission per container, and a dust storm wouldn't do the helicopters any good. The salvage experts undoubtedly had ship cranes in mind, by coincidence Smit Borneo has been moored in the Persian Gulf and it's done similar work. The Grauniad quotes the Boskalis chief exec: "We didn’t have to remove any more sand,” Berdowski said. “That was plan B, we were ready for that, and for plan C which was to start removing containers. But we hoped plan A would work and … it did." Given decent sources, a brief note could be useful. . . dave souza, talk 22:35, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
@Dave souza: Just as a comment in general on complex problems, I'd like to note that there are multiple angles. When crazy amounts of money are lost each hour, a crazy expensive solution can be a valid option and the most economical choice in the end. Bringing in hundreds of experts, dozens of helicopters and even more pilots to fly the helicopters as many hours as possible can be economically sound. Downright burning the cargo can be economically sound. Even burning or blowing up the entire ship may be an economically sound decision depending on the situation. Any of these crazy things would simply boil down to running the numbers. It may be a nightmare for the HR department, engineers and the environment but that's often not what it's about. Compare burning off gas from Oil wells: Unwanted natural gas can be a disposal problem at wells that are developed to produce oil. If there are no pipelines for natural gas near the wellhead it may be of no value to the oil well owner since it cannot reach the consumer markets. Such unwanted gas may then be burned off at the well site in a practice known as production flaring, but due to the energy resource waste and environmental damage concerns this practice is becoming less common. Perfectly flammable natural gas being wasted because sometimes it's the most economically sound solution. I have no WSJ subscription to I can't see the details anyway, but I'd expect them to approach the problem as an economical problem and their analysis may be valid, even if it sounds insane to an engineer. Luckily it didn't come that.   I'll try to think of a way to word and source a brief note. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 00:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz:Have tweaked the #Response section to outline the plans, and added a mention that "Some officials suggested the possibility of using heavy lift helicopters, but none are capable of lifting a fully laden 40-foot container." – using Aerotime Hub as a source. Don't think we need more than that, will leave it with you to review the sourcing. Thanks, dave souza, talk 09:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: Sources show 18,300 containers on board the ship, the maximum of 20,000 implies a lot are 20' containers. Aerotime Hub specifically discusses 40' containers but all sizes of Intermodal container have the same maximum gross weight of 30 tonnes, so I've made the statement less specific. As for "an economically sound decision", looks rather like the tragedy of the commons – Lloyds will evaluate what's their best bet, and hard luck if the wider impact is huge, as the case with "production flaring". For an analysis to be valid, the proposed solution has to comply with basic physics and known numbers which would have led responsible journalists to heavily caveat the helicopters idea, even though some officials suggested it. . . dave souza, talk 11:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

"On 23 March 2021, at 07:40 EGY (05:40 UTC), the Ever Given was travelling through the Suez Canal when it was caught in a sandstorm."

Is the "the" necessary here? Sincerely, Deauthorized. (talk) 18:41, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

This sentence has since been revised. Sincerely, Deauthorized. (talk) 18:55, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I replaced this with a BBC source that is accessible to all. Just wondered thoughts on this as it has a red padlock?

https://web.archive.org/web/20210325215239/https://www.wsj.com/articles/suez-canal-backlog-grows-as-efforts-resume-to-free-trapped-tanker-11616668644 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robidy (talk • contribs) 19:35, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Perfectly acceptable as a source per WP:PAYWALL. If you absolutely want to see it and see if there's more useful info, you can ask at WP:RX. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
@Robidy: RandomCanadian already restored it, but next time: add sources, don't replace them. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 18:32, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I hear a lot of popular culture about the 2021 Suez Canal obstruction have been posted on social media, but how much more can be expanded upon on this? I think I've added all I could for now. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 22:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@PhotographyEdits: Regarding your comment that there's consensus to have this section included - You've now reverted people's removals of this section three times, so there's clearly not consensus. Literally every current event nowadays get memes made about it, and I don't see how this bout of meme riffs has any distinguishing characteristics. EditorInTheRye (talk) 09:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

@EditorInTheRye: It seems that is was accidentally removed by another user. @RandomCanadian: agrees that it is warranted. I think that the sources used for this paragraph would even be enough to pass WP:GNG for a standalone article, so in my opinion a small paragraph about this is the least that should be done. PhotographyEdits (talk) 09:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
I see that many news sources seem to give examples of it. Some even mentioned it was combined with the Bernie Sanders meme (does that have a page? it's surely attracted lasting coverage). I don't have time to do a proper write-up about it now, though, but agree that we should mention it, if not a separate section, let's begin with at least a trivial sentence in the response section stating the fact. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:23, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

The infobox says "Non-fatal injuries: 0[2]" but there is nothing about fatal injuries. If there is a statement about non-fatal injuries but not a word about fatal injuries, then you immediately think that there may be undisclosed fatal injuries. Could this be improved in one way or another? --Stefan2 (talk) 23:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I think that part of the info box should just be removed for the time being, as the fact of there being no injuries is already stated in the article. Sincerely, Deauthorized. (talk) 23:40, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Agree that having a section in the infobox saying "non-fatal injuries: 0" is misleading and confusing. Either it should say "injuries: 0" or it should be removed, as the incident is not one where the possibility of injuries occurring seems significant, and the lack of injuries is already covered in prose. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 12:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• There is now a statement that there were no deaths and no non-fatal injuries. Can we just leave out injuries from the infobox altogether? After all, what injuries could possibly happen? The worst I could think of are some wet clothes and a broken smartphone if someone falls from a tug into the canal, but that's not what I'd call injuries. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:35, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  And a bruised ego? Anyway, I removed it without even noticing this discussion so think we're done here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I've noticed that in some parts of the article, Ever Given is prefixed with the word "the", while in other parts of the article, this prefix is absent. Sincerely, Deauthorized. (talk) 01:07, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

According to the guideline at Wiki: Naming conventions (ships) ...
Generally, a definite article is not needed before a ship's name, although its use is not technically wrong:
Victory was Nelson's flagship ... (preferred)
The Victory was Nelson's flagship ... (not recommended)
JennyOz (talk) 06:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
The definite article is not part of the ship's name, which is a proper name anyway, so, definite in and of itself already. The presence of any official prefix (such as USS or HMS) would proscribe the definite article entirely. -Mardus /talk 15:02, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

We should take care with reporting breaking news. And the impacts of this will likely outlast the duration of the blockage (at least by a wee bit)... @CaffeinAddict: Since you added the end date. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:06, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, this is definitely not the end of the story, just the end of it currently being stuck. CaffeinAddict (talk) 04:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Sources are indeed contradictory; some say "partially refloated". Some say that the ship is moving. Some say tugboats are making the ship move. Anyway this will all be clearer after a good night's sleep on my side, I hope. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

In an interview this morning the CEO of Boskalis said the ship has moved but the front is still very much stuck in the same place as before. KiaaTiX (talk) 07:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Yup. I put it in the article with a source from the Associated Press. It's been partially refloated, but it's still stuck.
Y'know, Ever Given's catastrophic for trade, but I'll miss it being there when it's out of the canal. AdoTang (talk) 13:05, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Well, you never know. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

According to vesselfinder, stern was out from the bank first thing, seemed to be back where it was late am, but now floating mid-channel and moving slowly north, awaiting usable news ref. Cebderby (talk) 13:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes: "The current position of EVER GIVEN is at Red Sea (coordinates 30.02371 N / 32.57845 E) reported 0 min ago by AIS. The vessel is en route to EGSUZ>NLRTM, sailing at a speed of 3.0 knots and expected to arrive there on Mar 31, 02:00." Martinevans123 (talk) 13:24, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
We can probably replace the stuff in the article written yesterday as the vessel was being unstuck with [3], which seems to provide all the information in one place. Also: here for the breaking news. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
For info, the first track log point on vesselfinder after it moved (initially backwards) showed 13:04UTC, by the next at 13:09UTC it was starting to go forward, so the time of release was 13:00UTC (15:00 EET for Egypt local?) give or take a few minutes.Cebderby (talk) 13:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
The sources look good, worth noting the Guardian used the same link for a changing story through the day (as did The Independent) but think that's the stable version now, the Sky News gives good coverage to the ship pivoting back during the day, but staying floating to that was ok. A newer story gives some more detail – Henley, Jon (30 March 2021). "How a full moon and a 'huge lever' helped free Ever Given from Suez canal". the Guardian. Retrieved 30 March 2021.. dave souza, talk 19:20, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Probably not an ideal source, but interesting points about the physics in Lopez, Margaux (29 March 2021). "The Ever Given and the physics of big ships clogged the Suez Canal". Massive Science. Retrieved 30 March 2021.. . Hope more analysis of these effects is published. . dave souza, talk 19:20, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

• Once the traffic from this page tails off a bit in a few days, the first order of business will be going through the refs and trying to remove redundant ones which say the same things. But better to wait a few days for that. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:37, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

So there have been over 100 fanfics of the Ever Given/Suez Canal pairing on Archive of Our Own. Should that be listed in popular culture? Also, how should that be cited? MeowNeow (talk) 21:31, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Requires a (ideally, multiple) secondary source. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:32, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I am not going to edit directly because I don't know enough about the situation, but I just want to inform interested editors that Bloomberg reports that 437 ships are waiting to pass the Suez Canal [4], and not 421 as indicated by the article. --JBchrch (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure we need the exact numbers (for the same reasons we don't need a listing of every ship that was affected). And, as said, the delays at the Suez are likely to last for a few days at least so that number might be dynamic as ships join the queue and leave it. Better off keeping rounded estimates ("more than 400"...). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Looks like this is a good idea as it is now April 1st in Egypt and the backlog in the Red Sea and Gulf of Suez appears to have increased from when the Ever Given was freed. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:05, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Addendum: as explained in the article, the captain of a ship relinquishes responsibility for navigation of the vessel to a canal pilot, specially employed by the SCA for this purpose. But, as explained in this 26 March article in The Guardian, the pilots don't always seem to employ the best practices: [5]. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:28, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Given this, I believe that it should be made clearer that the captain was not in charge of navigation when in the canal. (Hence, I have modified the last paragraph of the background section.) --Super Goku V (talk) 21:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Actually, per that Grauniad article above; "“More importantly, the Suez Canal Authority doesn’t take responsibility, the ship’s captain is the primary individual responsible, which is a loophole compared to the Panama canal.”"... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:56, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
That does explain why Egypt is threatening legal action against the owners of the ship to pay them or they will keep the Ever Given. --Super Goku V (talk) 12:19, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Is New York Times a reliable source? I got some information that could be used in the article. Link. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 01:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, New York Times is a reliable source. Rauisuchian (talk) 05:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Dunno what English style to use for the article. British or American? Other dialects probably won't matter here 'cos it's not something specific to a certain commonwealth country. The article uses "travelled" and similar words, by the way. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 04:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

It's currently marked as using Template:EngvarB. Scanning through the article suggests that it's primarily using British English although there isn't much to go on. If it actually becomes a matter of dispute then WP:ENGVAR and WP:RETAIN may come into effect. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 09:37, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Just to note we have no article on Egyptian English, and Egypt doesn't appear at List of dialects of English#Africa. I'd expect it to use whatever is used at Suez Canal. But Engvar is not always that simple. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Someone silly put an American English template. Fixed that. I'll go through the article and fix anything that looks non-British spelling to me. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Oh, haha, that was me. The only reason why I figured the article would be in American spelling was because I thought this article felt like something that would affect the US economy the most (cough cough oil prices, cough cough trade). Sorry, but what I described was just my assumptions. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 08:26, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

The wikipedia article for a maritime incident as known as this one, the one regarding costa concordia, has plenty of information regarding the crew piloting the ship at the time of the incident. Why doesn't this article have such information, being as relevant as it is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.136.70.94 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

See thread above titled "Barely any mention of the ship's captain". The Costa Concordia disaster was a bit different, as 33 people died and the captain, Francesco Schettino, fled the ship and was subsequently convicted of multiple manslaughter. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
I agree in part with both opinions. While the Costa Concordia disaster did have mention of the captain, in part because of his culpability and loss of life, the obstruction of the Suez Canal is arguably caused by human error as cited by many mainstream articles. I believe given the coverage and nature of the blockage, more mention of the captain is warranted. Jurisdicta (talk) 04:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Except that's all speculation and I haven't seen the captain's name widely reported so don't think we should. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Especially since it should be clear from the article that the SCA's canal pilots the were in control of the navigation of the ship through the Suez. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:56, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

The real issue is around the bridge resource management practices in effect, more than about the caption and pilot. There's an interesting overview and analysis of the problem the crew faced, and about why maybe nobody took the correct action, which would have been to stop and soft-bank the ship, on the Blancolirio channel on YouTube] (at about 8:30 he gets into BRM). Dicklyon (talk) 02:23, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Please mention about Google's Easter Egg in "Popular culture" section. Google's Easter Egg Celebrates 'Ever Given' Dislodging From The Suez Canal. Source Rizosome (talk) 04:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good. I need someone else to confirm whether AndroidHeadlines is a reliable source, as WP:RSPSS doesn't have an entry for that source. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 22:54, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Wouldn't CNET be fine to use? --Super Goku V (talk) 12:05, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
I haven't checked but most sources are usually fine unless there's something that looks fishy or if it's obvious that the source is a self-published website or promoting some form of fringe viewpoint. CNET should be okay. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
I added it in, I guess... Also, is Mashable a reliable source? WP:RSPSS doesn't list it at all, probably because it's not really "frequently asked" about reliability. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 09:49, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
The presumption is that if it's not listed at WP:RSP it should be OK most of the time. Of course that does not absolve you from looking for better sources if there are such. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

"Marwa Elselehdar: 'I was blamed for blocking the Suez Canal'". Martinevans123 (talk) 13:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

i understand the mention of the russian ships is due to them being the only military vessels affected by the incident, but who cares about the american ships? why should they be mentioned at all? what makes them special?

Which mention did you have in mind? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
I agree that most mentions of ships affected by the incident fall in the "trivial detail" department. I'll go through see if there's anything to remove. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Done. LNG carriers removed.[6] -- Tobby72 (talk) 12:26, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Consider the opening sentence to this article:

In March 2021, the Suez Canal was blocked for six days after the accidental grounding of Ever Given, a Golden-class container ship, on the morning of 23 March.

We mention at the very beginning that this event happened in March, then, at the end of the sentence, we mention that it... happened in March. I understand that the second mention is more specific, but wouldn't it be better if "March" was only said once in the sentence? Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 13:47, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:2021 Suez Canal obstruction/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: JackFromReedsburg (talk · contribs) 02:04, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello PhotographyEdits, I will be reviewing this shortly. Expect comments in the next few days. JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 02:04, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

General comments

• The IMO number should not be linked directly to commons in the prose. If you want to introduce them, please wikilink to the wikipedia article about them, so people aren't confused.
• For reference 31, you don't need to cite every sentence with the same cite, you can just cite the paragraph at the end.
• You will need to cite every {{citation needed}} template.
• "Needs update" and "When?" templates also need to be resolved.
• "The "complete disconnect of ship size development from developments in the actual economy" (OECD report, 2015[63]), and the corresponding limitations of existing infrastructure to handle them – a process evident in the Suez, where expansion work on the northern end of the canal has been ongoing – led to the incident being described by Michael Safi in The Guardian as a "worst-case scenario that many saw coming".[64]" is quite long and should be multiple sentences.
• All references seem generally reliable
• File:SUEZCANAL_SECTION.jpg is dubious. Please remove it, correctly tag it on commons, or replace it.
• Earwig report came up clean.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):   It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):   d (copyvio and plagiarism):   It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects):   b (focused):   It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias:   It is stable. No edit wars, etc.:   It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
·   ·   ·

Discussion

I am putting this article on hold, as it needs several fixes before it can be promoted. Please let me know when you've made the changes and I will finish the review. JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs)`

Not the original nominator, but will look at some of the issues since I've worked on this a lot.
1. IMO: working on that   Done
2. the next three points: I'll have to look that up see if it's just covered in existing sources, etc   Done Fixed the cn tags and the others I came upon
3. "Complete disconnect": blame me. Will see what I can come up with.   Later I tried a few options but none seem to get the idea across as clearly as the current wording, without being awkward. Again that might be more of a symptom of the time of night when I'm writing. Will see if morning brings up clearer ideas.
4. Picture: that the canal has banks as shown is well known. Will see if I can come up with a source or a better image.   Done Ineligible for copyright as a simple chart so tag resolved on commons.
Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:40, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Additional comment: I'm not sure whether the "coverage" and "stable" parts of GA are met, simply because this is still a developing story (legal wranglings over the ship and compensation; ongoing investigations...). To be exact, results for the investigation are expected shortly, since they said "two days" over the weekend..., but that doesn't resolve compensation claims and legal issues. Though, if we take the current article as it stands, it probably does cover all the points we know so far. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:52, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
As it stands currently, both criteria are met, although it may be useful to wait a week just in case any last minute developments are published. I don't see it necessary to wait for the slow legal developments, as those will most likely be suitable for an article of their own (Lawsuits regarding the 2021 Suez Canal obstruction, perhaps?). Definitely should be included once they happen.
IMO numbers should not link to commons in the prose.
About the "Complete disconnect", now that I've read it a few more times, the sentence is making more sense. An idea I've had is to just remove the part about the expansion work from that sentence, to cut down on its length. So at longest, The "complete disconnect of ship size development from developments in the actual economy" (OECD report, 2015), and the corresponding limitations of existing infrastructure to handle them, has led to the incident being described by Michael Safi in The Guardian as a "worst-case scenario that many saw coming". What do you think? JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 17:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
@JackFromReedsburg: Thanks for closing. I don't think it's worth a separate section on the talk page, so going to continue here. How would you suggest handling the IMO numbers, then? The commons categories seem relevant, and well I don't know if there's a specific reason not to have them - the link appears in a different shade anyway, and it's not an external link so WP:ELNO doesn't seem to apply (the only alternative short of removing the links would be putting the IMO number, along with the link, as a footnote). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• I do not think "current event" articles usually meet stability criteria. If it were up to me we would install a 6-mo or 1 year wait after the event before you can nominate. (t · c) buidhe 05:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
• My thoughts are a bit different here: it isn't the stability issue, unless there is contentious material, it's the broadness and major aspects that are a problem this soon after the event. There's too much that isn't known yet, and too many significant aftereffects cannot be suitably addressed until the data is released over the next weeks and months. I'm not talking about legal developments, which can run for years, but resulting economic harm, both near- and medium term. I was surprised to see that the article had been nominated this early; it's simply too soon for sufficient necessary information to be available. (I doubt that all the ships affected have even reached their ultimate destinations, for example.) BlueMoonset (talk) 18:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• After thinking about this some more, I recognize that waiting is the most appropriate option here. I will be failing this nomination, however I invite the editors to re-nominate it in a few months time once all necessary information is available. This article is well-written and just needs that last bit of information to make it truly ready for Good Article status. JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 18:48, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• Additional comment: I think it's worth re-checking the references again for reliability, factual accuracy, and also checking that they are cleanly formatted. As for "broadness" in coverage, a lot of the sections feel a little too specific, in my personal opinion. This is mainly because the sections either don't tend to summarize each stage of the incident succinct enough, or they are actually possess a lot of useful content but are written too long per section. As for "prose, spelling, and grammar", I think the focus would be to improve the "prose" part. Spelling and grammar should be fine overall, but whether the sentence structure and paragraph structure is clear enough is a bit questionable to me, but that's me personally. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 00:50, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment @JackFromReedsburg: @Qwertyxp2000: So it seems that a legal settlement has reached, it might be worth to retry the nomination? Not sure what you think of that, let me know. PhotographyEdits (talk) 20:11, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Apparently the Egyptians claim one death and one sunken tug during the refloating. do we cover this in the article? I'm on mobile and might have missed it. [7] Rmhermen (talk) 19:38, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this. None of the reporting at the time of the incident seems to have mentioned this, at all. This surfacing months after it seems somewhat dubious - are there any other news sources which report on this? I've found this, but the claim appears to be conflicting because they only claim one death (no sunken tug)... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:28, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

21st September 2021 Bloomberg published a detailed video report and article with lots of info which is not mentioned in the wiki article or talk page. This comment written in haste. I have no connection with Bloomberg, but this stood out to me as an ex "media professional" as quality journalism from the scene.

Source title: "The inside story of the ship that broke global trade" (on bloomberg site and YT channel)

Some Keywords not elsewhere in wiki: VDR Voyage Data Recorder Arguments between pilots , Bernouli's principle.

Discusses the background of typical tension between Captain, crew and boarding pilots, Context of alleged lowlevel habitual corruption/bribes (cigarettes etc), language barriers, need to maintain speed for optimal rudder control. A fascinating insight.

Humble thanks to those with some time to weave those aspects into the main article. I can only manage modest financial contributions to WP In support.

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.163.66.189 (talk) 10:44, 3 October 2021 (UTC)  

The sections on Seizure and Legal compensation claims seem to describe the same events and to contain duplicate information. David.Monniaux (talk) 20:20, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Panama (as the flag owner of the ship) issued their final report. A copy is available on gcaptain.com , at wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Final-Investigation-Report-Ever-Given-23-March-2021.pdf . For some reason, that website is banned from Wikipedia, so I can’t put the actual link in. In any case, it has transcripts of what happened on the bridge. Pretty damning on the Egyptian pilots. Not that the Egyptians will ever admit any culpability, but it’s probably worth including some of this in the article. A video of Sal Mercogliano discussing the report is also available on youtube, and the description has a link to the above report. Tarl N. (discuss) 03:14, 29 August 2023 (UTC)