Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Discovery Expedition
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 00:44, 17 March 2008.
Discovery Expedition[edit]
- previous FAC (23:25, 7 March 2008)
- Check external links
I am renominating this article because the single opposer from its previous candidature is satisfied that all issues raised have been satisfactorily addressed and is now prepared to support. A copyedit has also been completed. Brianboulton (talk) 11:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Another fine article from the main editor of Terra Nova Expedition. I went through and copyedited but found little to fix. Mike Christie (talk) 11:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - but sources and further reading is the same thing, they are however books. MOJSKA 666 (msg) 12:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To me, Sources are books etc that I have actually used in compiling the articles and to which there is at least one citation in the text. Further reading is other general books on the topic which I have not cited as sources. That's why I've divided them. Brianboulton (talk) 17:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is correct. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To me, Sources are books etc that I have actually used in compiling the articles and to which there is at least one citation in the text. Further reading is other general books on the topic which I have not cited as sources. That's why I've divided them. Brianboulton (talk) 17:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments:
- "Some polar chroniclers date the Scott–Shackleton antipathy from this point" Did I miss something? Was the anitpathy mentioned previously?
- Perhaps I should have said "the later Scott-Shackleton antipathy". Will edit accordingly. Brianboulton (talk) 17:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I found a book review of 'Diary of the "Discovery" Expedition to the Antarctic Regions, 1901-1904' by Edward Wilson, which includes a nice image a page from Wilson's diary from 9 January 1902. I assume there are no copyright issues. Could screen-capture if desired. Am still looking in JSTOR for more stuff, and still looking at the article. Ling.Nut (talk) 14:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See your talkpage concerning this Brianboulton (talk) 17:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "After its return home it was celebrated as a success, despite the need for an expensive relief mission to free Discovery from the ice...". When I first read this, I automatically assumed the relief mission occured after the return... thinking that the presumably empty ship was somehow valuable enough to warrant that action. Ling.Nut (talk) 15:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the text eventually makes it clear that Discovery did sail for home, but I see what you mean. Perhaps "...despite having needed an expensive etc..." will clarify? Brianboulton (talk) 17:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - as the previous opposer mentioned above, all my concerns have been addressed and I'm happy to support. Ealdgyth | Talk 15:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Another fine article, and since I was upbraided by Sandy for missing the last FAC I'd better support now. Couple of minor points:
- The "later Scott–Shackleton antipathy" isn't proven is it? They were rivals in the race to the pole, but apart from the hearsay and gossip-mongering there's no actual evidence of bad blood even at that point is there?
- Oh, yes. Scott extracted a promise from Shackleton that his Nimrod expedition 1907–1909 would avoid McMurdo Sound, which Scott considered his own field of work. Circumstances forced Shackleton to break this promise. On Shackleton's return, Scott preserved the public civilities, but his private letters to the RGS show his real feelings. Scott's greatest supporter Edward Wilson never spoke to Shackleton again, and Scott's Terra Nova diaries contain various caustic and unfriendly references to Shackleton. They weren't buddies any more!Brianboulton (talk) 12:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wild's total of five exceeding that of anybody else - does that still stand?
- No, I meant more than anyone during the Heroic Age & have altered accordingly. Brianboulton (talk) 12:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yomanganitalk 00:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Some copyedit issues:
In the map caption, the Blue line would benefit from an associated date range, like the Red and Black lines.
- Done Brianboulton (talk) 12:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "in search of the North-West Passage" - a link would be beneficial here
- Linked Brianboulton (talk) 12:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "but other favoured candidates had either aged or were no longer available." - well, presumably they all aged :)
- As indeed have we all. I've altered it: "had either become too old in Markham's view, or..." Brianboulton (talk) 12:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "praised the scientific accomplishments of the Scott and his colleagues." - of Scott and his
- Yes Brianboulton (talk) 12:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "The Vince memorial cross, erected on the Hut Point promontory." - this image caption is not a full sentence and should not have a full stop
- Removed Brianboulton (talk) 12:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "others from a supposed earlier fall-out during the southern journey" - falling-out
- Yes Brianboulton (talk) 12:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Two parenthetical unit conversions need commas in big numbers: "a route up to altitude 8,900 ft (2670 m)" and "a height of 7,000 ft (2100 m)"
- Done Brianboulton (talk) 12:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "The Dry Valleys in the Western Mountains of Victoria Land were an important geological find during the expedition's Western Journey." - 'western journey' is inconsistently capitalized
- For consistency, I've removed capitals from all references to western journey or western mountains Brianboulton (talk) 12:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "A general endorsement of the scientific results from the navy's Chief Hydrographer (and former Scott opponent) Sir William Wharton, was encouraging." - drop the comma
- Done Brianboulton (talk) 12:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "In particular, the glorification by Scott of man-hauling as something intrinsically more noble than other ice travel techniques,[85] led to a general distrust of methods involving ski and dogs" - drop the second comma
- Done Brianboulton (talk) 12:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "He took a larger and more experienced scientific team, he avoided his ship being trapped in the ice, he took a ski expert and made his men acquire some proficiency in skiing." - and he took a ski expert
I've altered the wording Brianboulton (talk) 12:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"But he replicated the general shape of the earlier expedition–its size, its multiple aims and its formal naval character, and above all retained his ambivalence regarding dogs, at least until it was too late to affect the expedition's outcome." - This isn't really a 'but', as it's at least partially consistent with applying lessons learned.
- The "but" is the divider between the positive and negative factors. He learned and acted positively in some respects, as illustrated. But he failed to learn other lessons, and didn't act. That's the sense I am seeking. Brianboulton (talk) 12:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Understood. That said, this sentence and the previous one still bother me; they are a notch less professional in tone than the rest ("He took..., he avoided..., and he took..." and starting a sentence with "But").
- I've done a bit of rewriting here. The first sentence replaces a "took" with an "employed", and the second sentence no longer statrs with "but". I have in fact restructured this sentence and divided it in two. I have also added a third explanatory sentence. I hope that this improves the text and makes things clear. Brianboulton (talk) 17:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Understood. That said, this sentence and the previous one still bother me; they are a notch less professional in tone than the rest ("He took..., he avoided..., and he took..." and starting a sentence with "But").
- The "but" is the divider between the positive and negative factors. He learned and acted positively in some respects, as illustrated. But he failed to learn other lessons, and didn't act. That's the sense I am seeking. Brianboulton (talk) 12:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"and the scurvy was particularly rife in the Ross Sea party during 1915–16" - and scurvy was particularly devastating to the
Done Brianboulton (talk) 12:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is one quotation that uses ellipses several times; most are correct, but one instance needs spaces before and after.
- Dealt with below by YoumanganBrianboulton (talk) 12:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All four ellipses in the quotation are quoted verbatim from the source? So Scott's official instructions were riddled with ellipses, and these are not ellipses indicating omitted text in the quotation? Or are these ellipses of omission as presented in a secondary source? Maralia (talk) 15:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My source was not Scott's actual instructions, but the version of them included in Ann Savours's book as cited. This gives one ellipsis, after the words "winter in the ice". The other ellipses are my own and are surrounded with spaces. My interpretation of the style rule is that the one in the Savours text does not require spaces. I am willing to be over-ruled. Brianboulton (talk) 17:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I absolutely agree with your (and Yomangan's) interpretation of MOS in terms of not altering the style of the quoted ellipsis. However, as to the the other ellipses (yours): per WP:ELLIPSES bracketed ellipses for omission would be preferable, as they would distinguish the quoted ellipsis from your own. Maralia (talk) 17:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry to be obtuse, but I'm confused by your reference to a bracketed ellipsis, and the WP:ELLIPSES page isn't any help. When you say "preferable", does this mean I have the option to leave things as they stand? I'll willingly adopt the form you prefer, if you can tell me precisely what that form is. Brianboulton (talk) 18:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- PS: Is the preferred form: "directed to [...] an advance to the western mountains" etc? If so, I understand, I think Brianboulton (talk) 18:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You're not being obtuse; I'm just used to speaking in shorthand :) The expected form is ellipses delimited by a space (text ... text); but bracketed ellipses (text [...] text) are suggested for some situations. I'll quote the relevant part:
- An ellipsis does not normally need square brackets around it, since its function is usually obvious—especially if the guidelines above are followed. But square brackets may optionally be used for precision, to make it clear that the ellipsis is not itself quoted; this is usually only necessary if the quoted passage also uses three period in it to indicate a pause or suspension.
- What I'm getting at is that putting your ellipses in brackets, as in my example above, would distinguish them from the explicitly quoted ellipsis. Maralia (talk) 19:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've bracketed them. It looks neat. I'm happy with this Brianboulton (talk) 22:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You're not being obtuse; I'm just used to speaking in shorthand :) The expected form is ellipses delimited by a space (text ... text); but bracketed ellipses (text [...] text) are suggested for some situations. I'll quote the relevant part:
- I absolutely agree with your (and Yomangan's) interpretation of MOS in terms of not altering the style of the quoted ellipsis. However, as to the the other ellipses (yours): per WP:ELLIPSES bracketed ellipses for omission would be preferable, as they would distinguish the quoted ellipsis from your own. Maralia (talk) 17:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My source was not Scott's actual instructions, but the version of them included in Ann Savours's book as cited. This gives one ellipsis, after the words "winter in the ice". The other ellipses are my own and are surrounded with spaces. My interpretation of the style rule is that the one in the Savours text does not require spaces. I am willing to be over-ruled. Brianboulton (talk) 17:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All four ellipses in the quotation are quoted verbatim from the source? So Scott's official instructions were riddled with ellipses, and these are not ellipses indicating omitted text in the quotation? Or are these ellipses of omission as presented in a secondary source? Maralia (talk) 15:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Dealt with below by YoumanganBrianboulton (talk) 12:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for a really interesting read. Maralia (talk) 04:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your careful attention Brianboulton (talk) 12:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If the ellipsis is unspaced in the original (i.e. the text is elided in the original) then it should remain unspaced here. Yomanganitalk 10:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had written up a last-pass list of small remaining issues, and inadvertently closed the window before submitting. Hopefully I can remember them all here:
"Western Journey" remains capitalized in one image caption.- Two images captions - for the Ross image and the modern McMurdo Sound shot - are not complete sentences and shouldn't have full stops.
- The caption for the inside image of the Hut either needs hyphen->endash or rephrasing.
- Many of the descriptive footnotes have no end punctuation, but some do.
- The footnote "Although most authorities, including Scott, Wilson and Shackleton, give 82°17 as the party's furthest south others, including Fiennes and Crane, give 82°11." needs an additional comma after 'south'.
- Footnotes 88 ("Shackleton's performance convinced Scott") and 91 ("See Beau Riffenburgh's history") have minor quirks in formatting.
The Further reading entry for Discovery Illustrated needs a comma between last and first name for the author.
- Maralia (talk) 03:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All these have now been attended to. Brianboulton (talk) 12:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A couple more:
The footnote that begins "This expedition was financed by" ends with "Nevertheless it is listed as British by SPRI." SPRI is not mentioned in the article, so it needs some context, or at least a link.
- Done Brianboulton (talk) 16:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The straightforward footnotes are perfect, but in the ones that also include descriptive text, the actual reference is tacked on to the end of the text in a variety of ways. Currently I see:
: Riffenburgh, p. 36- – Max Jones, p. 289
- . See Fiennes, pp. 33–34
- , according to Preston, p. 113.
. Preston, p.36
Can you tighten this up? Ideally I'd prefer the last format, for harmony with the 'plain' footnotes (although, note that there is a missing space between p. and the page number).
Maralia (talk) 15:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All amended per your preference Brianboulton (talk) 16:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've dropped the ending full stops on footnotes 63 ("Lashly's recorded comment") and 88 ("Shackleton's performance convinced Scott") as it appears you meant to, in line with the others we discussed above. Congrats on an excellent article, and thank you for being so receptive to my nitpicking. Maralia (talk) 19:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: I've seen stuff recently in the news about various countries wanting to claim various sections of Antarctica. I wonder if a sentence or two in the "Some consequences" section explaing how (if at all) this expedition has impacted that controversy (and who can claim what) might be relevant? Ling.Nut (talk) 13:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's an interesting subject, but I don't think that issues relating to territorial claims in the Antarctica continent can really be considered as consequences of the Discovery Expedition. They arose many years and many expeditions later, and I believe that the question properly belongs to a different article. Brianboulton (talk) 16:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: I've seen stuff recently in the news about various countries wanting to claim various sections of Antarctica. I wonder if a sentence or two in the "Some consequences" section explaing how (if at all) this expedition has impacted that controversy (and who can claim what) might be relevant? Ling.Nut (talk) 13:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(undent) Support. That was my last reservation: I was wondering if some modern consequences had been overlooked. Good job on an excellent article! Ling.Nut (talk) 00:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Per WP:MOS#Images, "Do not place left-aligned images directly below second-level (===) headings". ЭLСОВВОLД talk 22:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's OK there. The MOS guideline says it shouldn't be done without a compelling reason; that picture can really only go on that paragraph, and it can't be right-aligned without making the ToC ugly (unless we flip the ToC to the right, which is also controversial). So I'd suggest this is an acceptable case. Mike Christie (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't agree; Brianboulton and I have now changed the offending images from left to right (or moved from direct below the header) and I see absolutely no negative impact to the TOC, article or otherwise. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 23:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm happy with the penguins, but I'd have preferred Ross on the left - he's looking away from the article now. I don't feel so strongly as to make an issue of it, though. Brianboulton (talk) 23:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't oppose for this, but I should point out that this change now makes the article conflict with two of the suggestions from the WP:MOS#Images: alternation of images to the left and right, and having people's images look into the body of the article. I agree the penguin image is better in the new location, though. Mike Christie (talk) 01:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Where is this "alternation of images to the left and right" suggestion? It explicitly says "Generally, right-alignment is preferred to left- or center-alignment", no? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 01:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Compromise: I've returned Ross to the left, but lower down. It doesn't do any significant damage to the text, and Ross is now looking into the article. So I make that zero violations. Can we agree? Please? Brianboulton (talk) 01:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I think this is fine now. (ЭLСОВВОLД: I was thinking of this suggestion in that section: "Multiple images in the same article can be staggered right-and-left" which I assume they make for aesthetic reasons.) Mike Christie (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't oppose for this, but I should point out that this change now makes the article conflict with two of the suggestions from the WP:MOS#Images: alternation of images to the left and right, and having people's images look into the body of the article. I agree the penguin image is better in the new location, though. Mike Christie (talk) 01:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm happy with the penguins, but I'd have preferred Ross on the left - he's looking away from the article now. I don't feel so strongly as to make an issue of it, though. Brianboulton (talk) 23:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't agree; Brianboulton and I have now changed the offending images from left to right (or moved from direct below the header) and I see absolutely no negative impact to the TOC, article or otherwise. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 23:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's OK there. The MOS guideline says it shouldn't be done without a compelling reason; that picture can really only go on that paragraph, and it can't be right-aligned without making the ToC ugly (unless we flip the ToC to the right, which is also controversial). So I'd suggest this is an acceptable case. Mike Christie (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]