Wikipedia:Peer review/Southern Cross Expedition/archive1

Southern Cross Expedition

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for August 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, apart from the always welcome suggestions for textual improvements, I am particularly interested in getting feedback on the images. I have often had image problems at FAC, and I'd like these, if they exist, to be identified and dealt with before FAC, should the article get there. The article is about a more-or-less forgotten British-Norwegian Antarctic expedition, important mainly because it preceded all the famous expeditions of a few years later, opened doors for them, but got little or no recognition. It forms part of a series of expedition articles, all others of which are now FAs, and it would be nice if this can be brought to a standard whereby it can join them. Thank you. Brianboulton (talk) 21:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Image check: I corrected problems with the NOAA images, but the following issues remain:
  • Image:Bernacchi at WIdnes.jpg - needs a verifiable source (WP:IUP) and, as a derivative work, needs a copyright tag reflecting the status of the subject (CC-by 3.0 cannot possibly be correct for a 1910 image; CC was founded in 2001)
    • The source is presumably the postcard which the uploader scanned in, having obtained permission to do so from Catalyst Science Discovery, Widnes. That is what I have assumed from the details provided, and I have no other information. I have no idea what the correct copyright tag should be. The image is of secondary importance to the article – should I simply delete it, or do I have other options?
      • Several things: if the uploader had scanned it personally, the image would likely contain metadata and have a higher resolution. Also, if Catalyst Science Discovery Centre provided permission, that would need to be verifiable (i.e. we'd need contact information for the permission granter at the Centre or, preferably, an OTRS ticket). ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 14:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
        • Thanks, but I won't be using it - it's not an important image for this article. Brianboulton (talk) 19:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Image:SouthernXdeparture.jpg - source does not set forth an author or date of publication; how can we corroborate the copyright tag?
    • I don’t think I can prove beyond doubt the date of first publication. My best bet may be to contact the web manager on the source, and ask permission to use the picture. Or if possible find a better ship image.
  • Image:Clem markham.jpg - source links directly to the image itself; where can we confirm the publication date to corroborate the PD-US tag?
    • I am working on this, but not too hopefully, and Clem may have to go.
  • Image:Borchgrevink.jpg - image does not appear at the linked source. Source also has the troubling disclaimer of "All images used on the Polar Pathways website are subject to copyright and can only be used with the express permission of the various copyright owners."
    • Well, it does appear at the linked source when I click on it. This image of Borchgrevink appears in his 1901 book, and I have assumed it to be PD on those grounds alone. As to the warning, can a source claim copyright over an image that appears to be PD through age?
      • I see it now (my adblock settings were too high). If this image appeared in a 1901 book, it's fine. Just add that book's details to the source information. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 14:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
        • I will do this. Brianboulton (talk) 19:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Image:Borchgrevink Hut.jpg - I question the provenance; there is no metadata, drive-by uploader with talk page warnings and several deleted uploads, partial border on the right side of the image, etc.Quack? ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 18:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I don’t understand your comments about metadata, drive-by uploads etc, but I take it that you have reason to doubt that the uploader actually is the author of the image. The question is, what am I supposed to do about it?
    • (later) I do understand the comments now, but am uncertain if they amount to a no-no. Brianboulton (talk) 18:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Whether or not to include this image is merely a personal suggestion; there isn’t necessarily a policy or guideline to which I can point. My experience simply tells me that something doesn’t smell right. I wouldn’t oppose an FAC, or probably even comment, because all I have is a gut feeling; this image fits the profile of a typical copyvio, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that it is. From a perhaps philosophical standpoint, I think it's irresponsible for Wikipedia (FAs especially) to contain images for which there is reasonable doubt as to their provenance. I freely admit this to be a conservative approach, perhaps overly so, but I simply don’t care to risk misrepresentations. That being said, however, use your best judgment. If you’re not concerned with the image and believe its inclusion to be necessary, go ahead and leave it in. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 15:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
        • In view of this - and I agree with the ethical standpoint - I'll replace it. Brianboulton (talk) 19:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Image:Newnes-Spy-1894.jpg is fine as-is, although it would be nice to know whether you (Brianboulton) scanned it yourself or obtained it from an online source and to make mention in the image summary accordingly. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 18:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I got it on-line and will mention this in the summary. Brianboulton (talk) 19:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• One further question: on this is an image entitled: "Mr Colbeck, Mr Bernacchi and Mr Evans skinning a seal", which is explicitly stated as being from Borchgrevink’s expedition account. If I chose to use this image (say instead of the present Bernacchi one), would this statement of origin be enough to establish PD? In confusion, Brianboulton (talk) 21:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I yield to your expertise on this subject matter and these persons; if you believe the credit to "Borchgrevink's 1901 account of the expedition" refers to this, then the support is indeed present, although not optimally so. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 18:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I think "Borchgrevink's account of the 1901 expedition" can only refer to that book, since he wrote only one account, it was published in 1901 - and as you might put it, "Quack". Bits of the book (not the best bits) are available in e-book form; the actual volume is extremely rare and prohibitatively expensive. Brianboulton (talk) 19:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
  • What makes the following sources reliable?
    • http://www.anta.canterbury.ac.nz/resources/sth_cross/
      • The site is the work of David Harrowfield, an acknowledged expert on the Cape Adare site which he has visited many times. He has authored various published articles and papers on the site, as well as contributing to the Antarctic Heritage Trust's 1995 book Icy Heritage. I think he can be considered reliable. I ought to have acknowledged his authorship in the list of sources, and now have. Brianboulton (talk) 17:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
    • http://www.south-pole.com/homepage.html
      • This is a very comprehensive site dealing with all aspects of Antarctic exploration history - I have frequently drawn material from it. Its individual articles all list reputable sources, and where I have particular knowledge, e.g. with the Shackleton and Scott expeditions, I can confirm that the relevant articles stick close to these sources. I have no doubts about the site's general reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 17:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
    • http://www.coolantarctica.com/Antarctica%20fact%20file/History/antarctic_ships/fram.htm
      • Coolantarctica is another very wide-ranging, and much-visited site. It is the brainchild of Zoologist Paul Ward, a former marine biologist with the British Antarctic Survey. He has built the site up to be an accessible source of information on many aspects of Antarctic history, geography, wildlife and conservation. I consider this to be an important and reliable source. Brianboulton (talk) 17:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Fine with those. Having them out there helps with the whole FAC process! Ealdgyth - Talk 17:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 13:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: In the light of the above comments on images, while I await further clarifications, I have deleted the first four mentioned above, at least until I can verify beyond doubt their PD status. I have kept the hut image, because I can't fully understand the reasons for objecting to it. I have found some replacement images and maps; what this article desperately needs is a prose review. If someone doesn't come along soon, I'll review it myself. Brianboulton (talk) 17:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments:

• A party including Bull and Borchgrevink had briefly landed, becoming (so they claimed) the first men to set foot on the Antarctic continent. – Wording is odd due to the “so they claimed” parenthetical statement. If there is doubt over whether they were indeed the first men to set foot on the Antarctic continent, that should be addressed in the text but perhaps worded differently.
  • I've transferred the explanation, in reworded form, from f/note to text.
• In numerous addresses to learned societies he stressed the scientific work that could be carried out by a resident expedition, including the possibility of establishing the location of the South Magnetic Pole. - I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what a "learned society" is. Perhaps it is a UK term for a group of educated people?
  • I think its use goes beyond the UK - Wikipedia has a List of learned societies which includes 30 or more from the USA. But, to avoid possible difficulty with the term, I've reworded the sentence.

• The others were Anton Fougner, scientific assistant and general handyman; Kolbein Ellifsen, cook and general assistant, and the two Sami dog-handlers, Per Savio and Ole Must. Savio and Must, at 21 and 20 years of age respectively, were the youngest of the party. - Check for puncuation consistency.
  • I've got rid of the semicolon, so the commas are consistent, but I'm still not happy with the sentence and will probably rework it.

• Unloading began on 17 February. First ashore were the dogs (now reduced to 75 in number) with their two Sami handlers, who remained with them and thus became the first men to spend a night on the Antarctic continent. - I presume the number of dogs was reduced due to death, but some clarification as to why would be helpful.
  • You're probably right, but no explanation is given by the sources. Only one source mentios that 90 were taken, several mention 75 landing. I've dropped the mention of 90, and just left it that 75 landed

• That day, Southern Cross departed for Australia. - Why?
  • To spend the winter there, I've added this.

• The zoologist, Nikolai Hansen, had fallen ill during the winter. On 14 October he died, apparently of an intestinal disorder, and became the first person to be buried on the Antarctic continent. - The fact that he became the first person to be buried on the Antarctic continent is stated earlier. I would probably get rid of the first mention of it.
  • Done

• Unfortunately, their chosen location was cut off from the continent's interior by high mountain ranges, and journeys along the coastline were frustrated by unsafe sea ice. - We shouldn't take a position on the matter, so I would get rid of "Unfortunately".
  • Done
• This discovery was derided a few years later, by members of the Discovery Expedition, who claimed that the island "did not exist", but its position has since been confirmed at 71°38'S, 170°04'E. - Derided does not seem to be the right word. Perhaps doubted?
  • No, it's definitely "derided", if you read the sneery tone of the Discovery Expedition comments as recorded by Huxley, to the distress of Bernacchi, who was on both expeditions and thought well of Borchgrevink.
• The first port of call in the Ross Sea was Possession Island, where a tin box left by Borchgrevink and Bull on the 1895 expedition was recovered. - What is the significance of this?
  • The significance (what the box contained, why it was left) is unexplained by the sources. I imagine it was left as proof that the Bull expedition had landed there.

• They then proceeded southwards, following the Victoria Land coast, discovering further islands, one of which Borchgrevink named after Sir Clements Markham (who remained unimpressed). - By what? the Voyage itself or the naming of an island after him? And why?
  • I've expanded the text a bit, to clarify Markham's grudging attitude
• Southern Cross returned to England in June 1900, to a cool welcome. – What is a cool welcome?
  • Opposite of a warm welcome. They were treated indifferently, rather than as heroes
• General comment on footnotes: When you have two footnotes back-to-back, there should not be any spaces between them (ex: Correct:, Incorrect )
  • Noted.

Good work! Best, Happyme22 (talk) 19:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you very much for these helpful comments, which ae much appreciated Brianboulton (talk) 22:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• It is my pleasure -- good luck with this wonderful article! --Happyme22 (talk) 18:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments

I read this a few days ago and only got to make comments now - the comments from Happyme22 have improved what was already an extremely good article (and I have heard of learned societies in the US, and cool welcomes). Anyway, here are a few suggestions

• Why is Norwegian linked in the lead, but British is not? I would either link both (or neither).
  • Thought I'd delinked both - have now.
• Would it make sense to mention the earlier visit to Possession Island in the Background section?
  • Yes, now included
• Is the second "in" here needed: Determined that he would lead such an expedition himself, Borchgrevink spent much of the next three years in Australia and in England attempting to gain financial backing.?
  • I've tweaked the sentence.
• Was the ship in 1894-1895 named Antarctica (per Background) or just Antarctic (per Personnel)?
  • Antarctic is correct - fixed.
• Would it make sense to link Hobart, Tasmania?
  • Yes, done.
• How about A few years later his discovery was derided by members of the Discovery Expedition, who claimed that the island "did not exist",[44] but its position has since been confirmed at 71°38'S, 170°04'E.[45]?
  • Yes, done.
• Would a different verb than "recovered" be better in samples of the continent's natural fauna and flora, and of its geology, had been recovered.[43]? Perhaps collected?
  • Yes. I am adding a bit more here, about he expedition's finds.
• Would it make sense to include the many Antarctic firsts associated with the expedition in the lead? First overnight stay, first stuctures, etc.
  • This has been done.

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• • Thank you for these various comments, all of which have been incorporated. Brianboulton (talk) 11:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Glad to have helped - once the picture issues are resolved, and it is at FAC, please let me know. Have you tried looking on Flickr - there are enough tourists to Antarctica now that there may be some photos there that are free or could have their license changed on request perhaps. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)