Wikipedia:Peer review/Far Eastern Party/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'll be taking it to FAC in the next few weeks, and am interested in some outside input beforehand. Thanks, Apterygial talk 03:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Brianboulton comments: This is good stuff. My comments are mainly quibbles about prose; I'm only at the halfway point and will post more comments later.
- Lead
You need briefly to mention that Mawson became ill before you refer to "Mawson's related illness"
- Background
- "Battling katabatic winds sweeping down from the Antarctic Plateau, the hut was erected..." Beginning sentences with the "ing" verb form should be done cautiously, especially with another "ing" closely following. Also, it wasn't the hut that battled the winds. Recommend a reword: "Battling katabatic winds that swept down from the Antarctic Plateau, the shore party erected their hut and began preparations..." etc
- There is rather a lot of passive voice in this paragraph: rations etc were prepared, caches of supplied deployed, etc. Perhaps find a more active voice.
- East
- Section title maybe a little cryptic? Why not "Journey eastwards" or similar?
- "10 November": best give a year as we are in a new section
- "arranged the sledges": do you mean "rearranged", or "reorganised", rather than "arranged"?
- "remaining ... remaining" in same sentence
- Glaciers
- What glaciers? We need an introductory sentence so we know where we are.
- "causing the dogs to slip..." Grammatically this needs to be "that caused the dogs to slip..."
- In the context given, the word "repectively" is probably superfluous
- Why capitalise Huskies?
- What is meant by the "lid"?
- "one of them, Shackleton, tore open their food bag..." To what/whom does "their" refer?
- Link "hoosh"
- I'm a little confused by "the party reached the eastern limit of the glacier and began the ascent". Ascent of what?
Brianboulton (talk) 23:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. These are the changes made in response so far. Apterygial talk 03:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Later: Only a few scattered comments:-
- Death of Ninnis
- Section needs more precise date information. We have "That evening" and later, "By noon next day", but you have to refer to the previous section to work out what the date is.
- Alone
- "2 miles" → "two miles" (MOS) Also note later instances of "5 miles" for adjustment
- The MOS also argues for consistency in comparable quantities. I interpret this as meaning that if I use the numeral figure for longer distances next to that for shorter distances, the numeral figure should be used for the shorter distance. Further, it would seem inconsistent to use words later for a same distance I've used numerals for earlier. This is very minor stuff, so I'm not overly concerned about it, but that's my reasoning. Apterygial talk 05:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- Aftermath
- "Upon Mawson's return, the Aurora was recalled" - how was this done? What form of contact did they have?
- "Greenland Dogs" - capital D?
- Some confusion in use of "this", e.g. "This [excessive Vitamin A] is found..." and "While this [hypervitaminosis A] is generally cosidered..."
- "Generally onsidered" by whom? Is it a generally accepted medical view?
- "it has its detractors" - identity of "it" uncertain
One further point occurs to me, looking at the article as a whole. It is a highly competent piece of work, definitely FA-worthy, but I wonder if the full scope of the Australasian Antarctic Expedition ought not to be referred to somewhere? In addition to the activities based at Cape Denison there was the Macquarie Island sideshow and, more significantly, Frank Wild's Western Party. I'm not suggesting anything more than a strategically placed contextual sentence. Brianboulton (talk) 23:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- I believe I've responded to each of your points. A couple of sentences of appraisal of the expedition have been added to the Aftermath section. Apterygial talk 05:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)