` :No. Wikipedia has an intentionally narrow definition of vandalism, given the all-too-human failing of labeling anything contradictory to one's cherished point of view as disruptive behavior. These edits are not obscene; they do not constitute examples of crude humor, and they are not obvious nonsense. No portion of the article was deleted without explanation. In absence of such behavior, guidelines urge us to assume good faith. But are they good edits? :The quality of edits on Wikipedia is established through consensus among editors within a framework of policy, guidelines, generally accepted conventions of good writing, rounded out by a collection of interesting and sometimes contrary essays. 'Consensus' is the key word; unless an edit is 'obviously bad,' editors should not act unilaterally in reverting them.This is not a hard-and-fast rule, but a 'good-behavior' approach to consensus building. Some editors engage in bold edit, bold revert, talk page discussion cycles, a somewhat more drama-prone way of arriving at consensus. See Quote, above. :My own opinion on the value of these edits are (in the order that they appear in edit diff): :# Weather conditions: Comes from a Stowe quote in the ESPN reference. Is Wikipedia on solid grounds in writing as if those conditions were actually extant? Probably not. It's Stowe's quoted observation to ESPN, and not an independent observation, that conveys weather conditions to this article. :# No wind instruments: No backing reference. According to verifiability policy it is the responsibility of the editor introducing a change (here  that can be challenged to furnish a backing reference supporting the change. No reference establishing how the expedition was equipped has been provided; a general reader of the encyclopedia cannot check this fact. An excessively polite editor might tag this alteration with , but if Jimmy Wales had his way, it should simply be removed. :#  'Turned over' v. 'Knocked on its side':  The underlying source by Doswell employed the phrase  'All of a sudden, the entire boat turned completely over sideways and slammed into the water within seconds.'  The new wording seems to adhere to Doswell's wording more closely than the old article wording did; in no manner can Doswell's language can be construed as a 360° rotation of the hull. I have one small technical issue: this language should be before the Doswell citation tag, not after it; a casual reader would be mislead into thinking that this material is based on the following New York Times source. :#  Reasons for cancellation: Even before the copy changes, the sentence has been unreferenced and open to challenge. See the second point above. Nichol's Daily News piece Epic Trip or Con Cruise does collaborate on pre-voyage financial difficulties, as reported by Stowe. To my mind, attribution to Stowe is valid here.  :#  'Moving from Pier 63' v. 'Moving from Pier 63 according to Stowe'  Williams' New York Times piece on the Hudson River Park development does not quote Stowe, so 'according to Stowe' has no support in that particular reference. Williams reports that a company called 'Pier 63 Maritime,' owner of 'an old railroad barge' was vacating the pier without contest. The Williams article does not make a direct connection with Stowe or the Schooner Anne to this railroad barge. To make that connection, one has refer to Stewart's earlier New York Times article (On the Waterfront, at Least for Now) That article connects Pier 63 Maritime to John Krevy, and that Stowe docked his boat there. Technically, citation tags to both references should follow the passage. Taken together, both New York Times articles establish the events that Pier 63 closed; by inference all habitues of the railroad barge had to go elsewhere. Stowe isn't in the loop here; it's not Stowe's utterances but the reporting of the New York Times that establishes the causality of the move. The edit is inaccurate and makes the passage more wordy.      :# Ozone Depletion. The quote is valid, but it is from a [[Wikipedia:No ori