Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Discovery Expedition/archive1

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 not promoted 23:25, 7 March 2008.

---

Discovery Expedition

Check external links

I'm nominating this article for featured article because no major issues had to be resolved during peer review and I believe it is now ready. Brianboulton (talk) 16:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Self-nominator Brianboulton (talk) 16:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

peer review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm a little worried about the sourcing. The entire first section, Forerunners, has only one reference, and that reference says that one expedition was British-financed. The rest of that section needs sources. Most of personnel is sourceless, as are some other portions of the article. As a rule of thumb, there should be a reference at the end of every paragraph. Additionally, I noticed some prose that did not seem very professional, or was awkward.

I haven't put many in-text citations in the Forerunners section, this being background information obtainable from the various polar histories listed in the Sources section. In the Personnel section, all the main players are wikilinked to their biographies. I am happy to add further citations to these sections, though I can't for a few days because I am away from my polar library at the moment. On the question of awkward and/or unprofessional prose, can you indicate the parts you are referring to so that I can give them attention? Brianboulton (talk) 15:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• ...to set a Furthest South at 79°17'S - why is Furthest South capitalized, and more importantly, what does it mean - furthest south for that expedition, or furthest south on record for a human? I'm assuming the latter, but it should be cleared up.

Furthest or Farthest South, (or North), is standard terminology in polar history for the highest latitudes achieved before the poles were conquered, always capitalised. I am happy to clarify this. Brianboulton (talk) 15:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• There are a few quotations in the article, but there are no indications of who said them. I recommend integrating them into the text, or specifying who said it.

I may be misunderstanding you, but every direct quote that I can see in the article has a citation attached. Can you help me by pointing out the ones that don't? Brianboulton (talk) 15:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• I'd like a modern inflated estimate of some of the prices in the article

This can easily be done, but I'll wait until I'm back with my polar library before doing it Brianboulton (talk) 15:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

All in all, it looks pretty good, but I'd like some more work done to it, and, ideally, a copyedit from a fresh set of eyes. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest. I would welcome a copyedit from a fresh pair of eyes. Brianboulton (talk) 15:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I am now able to address your points more fully.

• Sources and citations: I have revised the text of the Forerunners section, and included a significant number of footnotes and references. I have added further references and notes in the Personnel section and elsewhere. I've also used a more reliable coordinate for Borchgrevink's Furthest South.

• Furthest South: I have included an explanatory footnote for this term. I've also noticed that the term is not always capitalised & have mentioned this in the note.

• Quotations: I've checked all 11 quotations in the article. So far as I can see, every one is properly referenced, in most cases the text explains who said what, and in the others there are explanatory footnotes. So I really don't know what you mean by saying that there are "no indications of who said them". Can you explain?

• Inflated costs: I've done this.

I hope that a copyeditor will check the article over before long. Brianboulton (talk) 23:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Slight Oppose mainly due to some prose issues, it can be a bit wordy at times. It could really use a good copyedit by someone who is better at it than I am. I don't claim to have caught all the awkward bits in my list below.

• Quibble, but I slightly prefer the wording "summer of 1841-42" "1841-42 summer". The second just sounds awkward to me. Feel free to ignore this though.
• Forerunners section, second sentence of the first paragraph seems awkward and wordy.
• Same section, second paragraph, second sentence is a run on and awkward. The switch from the whaling trip to the 1899 expedition is awkward.
• Same section, third paragraph, I'd say "...at the turn of the 19th to the 20th century..." The rest of the paragraph might be better expressed as "Four other expeditions were in the Antarctic at the same time as Discovery, one from Germany led by Erich von Dryglaski, one from Sweden led by Otto Nordenskjold, an expedition from France led by Jean-Baptiste Charcot, and the last one led by William Speirs Bruce from Scotland." The "See List of Antarctic expeditions."can be dropped. You might consider putting a Further information blurb at the top of the section that links to the list.
• The first paragraph of the Royal Navay, Markham and Scott section is awkward and definitely needs a copyedit.It is very wordy and awkwardly phrased at points.
• Last sentence of that section, the "whole-hearted backing" part of the sentence makes it necessary to have a citation on that sentence.
• Personnel section, first paragraph, second sentence is very wordy and awkward.
• The last parts of the second and third paragraphs of Personnel need citations, as there is opinion there. "lifelong soulmate, a steadying influence and one of the most acute of Antarctic observers." is definitely opinion as is "..debutant who would later make his name..."
• Not being British, who are "Bird's, Bovril"? I have no clue what they might have contributed (I love the touch of noting they got free mustard and chocolate...what an odd combination!)
• Again... missing context ... White Ensign? Blue Ensign? Why is it significant that Discovery couldn't fly the WHite E? And what did flying the Blue E mean?
• Objectives section - I may be quibbling here, but you say "The Discovery, like Ross and Borchegrevink before it, ..." and I find that jarring. You're equating a ship with two explorers. Maybe say "like the Ross and B expeditions before it.." since I think you're using Discovery here as shorthand for "the Discovery expedition"
• Same section, might consider a citation for the last sentence in the first paragraph.
• Okay, I get to the First Year section and the third paragraph and read "experimental balloon flights"... err... what were they using balloons for? Nothing has been mentioned before this about balloons, surely this was one of the earliest balloon usage in the Antarctic...were they manned balloons or just scientific? I'd love to see a bit more about this rather than what seems like a throwawy sentence here.
• Same section, fifth paragraph is lacking all source citation.
• Same section, sixth paragraph, why is Southern Journey capitalized?
• Same section and paragraph, the last sentence is a bit awkward, do you mean that they were only able to revise the sledging rations somewhat? Needs a citation too, I'd think.
• Same section, last paragraph, last two sentences could use citation.
• Arrival of the relief ship, last sentences of the two paragraphs could use citations.
• Second year in the ice section, last paragraph needs a citation.
• Same for the last part of the first paragraph in Aftermath and the second paragraph there and the last sentence of the fourth paragraph in this section.
• Also last sentence of the first paragraph of Some consequences, as saying someone became addicted to the ice is opinion.
• Some consequences section, the second and third paragraphs are very wordy and have a number of awkwardly phrased sentences. One I noticed in particular was "It outdid Scott's Discovery efforts in polar exploration terms, but Shackleton's achievements were preceived as with horses, not dogs, and did not alter Scott's prejudices." which leaves me a bit mystified about what the horses have to do with anything.
• Last paragraph of the article, the last bits need a source citation.
• Sources section, they need publication places and could be consistently formatted. I assume "pb" means paperback?
• Pictures -
  • Discoveryboat.jpg lacks source information on Commons, it's unclear whether it's Public domain without that information.
  • Scott Statue.jpg While the picutre itself is certainly released, you need to investigate the copyright status of the statue itself also. If the statue itself is still in copyright, it can't be released under a free use license.
• I strongly urge at least one copyedit by someone better suited to that task than myself. I'm not an expert on grammar and can't say that I caught all the awkward and/or wordy phrasing.

It's a very good and interesting read, I enjoyed learning about it quite a lot. Will be happy to support when the copyedit has been done. Ealdgyth | Talk 21:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.