Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Australasian Antarctic 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 promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 29 February 2020 [1].

---

Australasian Antarctic Expedition

Nominator(s): Brianboulton 16:18, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

This was Brianboulton's last big almost finished project, so it would be nice to get it to FA as a tribute. I've made a few corrections, added and subtracted some tiny bits and cut down the mentions of "harrowing" (Brian's favourite word), but it is basically the same article that he left us with and I don't think it is too far short (in my ten-year out of date opinion). Tiny parts of it are quite harrowing, but mostly its polar exploration done properly. Yomangani^talk 16:18, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Support from From Tim riley

Just booking my place (the first of many, I suspect, and quite right too). More over the weekend. Tim riley talk 20:17, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

First batch of comments

First, thank you so much, Yomangani, for taking this up. I can't think of a better tribute to BB than your navigating this article through FAC. As to the review, it need hardly be said that sentiment can play no part: the review must be as rigorous as any FAC. Brian would not have countenanced anything else. (I have recorded elsewhere how on one occasion he ticked me off, very gently, for suggesting that FAC criteria could be less rigorously applied to certain non-academic articles, and on another he consulted me with some urgency when he thought a WP luminary was getting too easy a ride at FAC.) These are my comments. They are from someone with negligible knowledge of Antarctic exploration, and are therefore mostly on prose. It will take me two or more goes to get through the text, and this batch of comments goes down to the end of the Cape Denison section:

• Lead

• I'd lose mention of George V at the end. I doubt if he played any part in nominating Mawson for the accolade.

• Done.

• Background

• "to both brief Shackleton and check that he was still committed" – though the notion of a split infinitive is, as Fowler says, a superstition, nonetheless I think I'd lose the "both" here, which is a split and a half and, more to the point, impedes the flow of the prose.

• Done.

• "he received confirmation from Shackleton that he would not be going" – a confusing pair of "he"s. Perhaps better just as "Shackleton confirmed that he would not be going"

• Done.

• Aims

• "As a consequence, decided" – missing a "he"?

• Done.

• "none of these was available" – "none was" is not wrong, but the OED and Fowler prefer "none were"

• Done (but, as my brother always says, Fowler died in 1933 so he's not going to care.)

• My compliments to your bro, together with a plug for the fourth edition of Fowler, revised by Jeremy Butterfield and issued by the Oxford University Press in 2015: well worth reading. Not, perhaps, quite as much fun as the old buzzard's quirky original, but full of sound advice. Tim riley talk 22:36, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

• Ship and equipment

• "I might link Tasmania.

• Done.

• Personnel

• "resident of Antarctica, polar veteran Frank Wild" – this must have been an early BB draft. I nagged him out of using false titles years ago. A definite article before "polar" will do what's necessary.
• "Swiss ski-jumping champion – ditto

• Done both; I just missed that when rearranging.

• Finance

• "in the Daily Mail" – Not making a point of this, but I think capitalising and italicising the definite article and including it in the piping was BB's preferred style. I may be wrong.

• Not in the expedition articles I've checked, so not done.

• Fine. Tim riley talk 22:36, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

• Voyage south

• "half-drowning the dogs – it's a vivid image, but can any animal be half-drowned?

• I had exactly the same reaction and was thinking of changing it to "soaking the men and dogs", but as an image it is spot-on even if it is strictly impossible; soaking is a bit feeble by comparison.

• Fine with me, then. Tim riley talk 22:36, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

• "The weather finally abated" – there is always weather: perhaps "the bad weather finally abated"? (Or just "the weather finally improved"?)

• Done.

• First season: winter 1912

• I'm wondering why the wind speeds are given in metric with imperial equivalents in brackets, but the distances – feet and miles - are the other way about. To me it would seem natural, given the date and the nationalities involved, to standardise on imperial with metric in brackets, but I don't press the point.

• This was something else I noticed - I assume it was because Borchgrenvink, being mostly Norwegian, used metric. But I'll go back and check the source.

• Borchgrevink, like a proper explorer, used miles per hour; the were converted to km/h in Turney's book.

• "centred around various scientific activities" – there are some (not me) who get very exercised about "centred around" and insist – logically but slightly unnecessarily perhaps – that it should be "centred on".

• Doesn't have the same rhythm but harmless, so done.

• "with extraordinary eclat" – just checking that the source omits the acute accent in éclat.

• It does.

• Sledging, 1912–1913

• "Eastern Coastal party" – and many others in the same format: are we sure about the capital letters? I'm sure the participants capitalised the parties but should we?

• Checking that, but I've gone lowercase on the only uppercase one for the moment.

• Changed to uppercase where Mawson generally does the same. He's not very consistent, but where he's referring to the planning of the parties he does capitalise.

• "which fortunately had not fallen" – amen to "fortunately", but it's nevertheless WP:EDITORIAL, and likewise "frustratingly" two sentences later.

• I reckon these are so evidently true that we can dodge the cosh. I think Wikipedia's culture of beating the adjectives out of articles in the name of policy doesn't mesh well with engaging prose (and I think Brian was at least somewhat of the same mind).

• Hmm. If they're that evidently true then they don't need saying. But I don't press the point, though don't be surprised if other reviewers do. Tim riley talk 22:36, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

• They don't need saying but I think they give the prose a bit of a lift; I'll fight the other reviewers when the time comes.

• Well said! Tim riley talk 22:51, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

More later this weekend, I hope. – Tim riley talk 18:58, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Quite right on maintaining standards; any attempt to wave it through will have me haunted by Brian leaning over my shoulder, tutting and shaking his head. Yomangani^talk 22:22, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Second and concluding batch from Tim

• Macquarie Island

• "By mid-February, the station had made contact with Australia, and by 12 May, was transmitting daily weather reports to Wellington" – Looks slightly odd, to my eye anyway, to have one country and one city. It would seem more natural to have "Australia … New Zealand" or "Cityname … Wellington" if Cityname is available.

• Done. Sydney was first.

• Oceanographic work

• "had been searched for without success on numerous previous occasions" – we could do without "previous" here, I think.

• Done.

• Aftermath

• It looks a little strange to include "Dowager Empress" in the blue link but to exclude "King" from the one in the next sentence.

• Done.

• "Bage–already an officer in the Royal Australian Engineers–was…" – if my ageing eyes don't deceive me we have unspaced en-dashes here. The MoS bids us have spaced en-dashes or unspaced em-dashes.

• If somebody could sort that out I'd be grateful - never got my head round this - they are just all dashes to me.

• Done. Tim riley talk 01:19, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

• Notes

• Note 3: "gifts of supplies, equipment, whisky and tobacco" – as whisky and tobacco are surely "supplies", it might be worth turning the order round: "gifts of equipment and supplies, including whisky and tobacco" or "gifts of equipment, whisky, tobacco and other supplies"

• Done.

• "Worth linking "New South Wales" – its only mention in the article?

• Done. Victoria too as that was only mentioned as part of another link.

• Further reading

• Some tidying up of capitalisation wanted for the first two books.

• Done.

• Lead

I've just spotted a couple of points on rereading the lead (apologies!)

• "at the end of the second paragraph "utility" does not strike me as an improvement on a plain "use".

• Done.

• "I think it might be better to trim the links to Ninnis and Mertz down to just "Belgrave Ninnis" and "Xavier Mertz". We don't give Jeffryes's middle name, and, to judge from their articles, Ninnis and Mertz didn't use theirs.

• Done Mertz. Ninnis' dad, Belgrave Ninnis, was an explorer too and couldn't oblige us by giving his son a different name, so I've left his Edward in (just in case a fan of the Ninnis family reads the lead and can't believe we think Belgrave Ninnis went on the expedition? Not very likely, but it doesn't do any harm to show we know our onions).

That's all I can find to quibble about. Tim riley talk 09:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

• I've adopted most of your suggestions as they all seemed sensible to me, but please note my inability to understand the different use of these: –—−. Help. They are all just lines. Yomangani^talk 23:48, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

• Noted, and tweaked. I'll be back during Sunday after a final read-through. Tim riley talk 01:19, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Happy to add my support. What a sad pleasure it has been to review a Boulton article for the last time. This one seems to me comprehensive, well illustrated, thoroughly referenced, balanced and a first-class read. Clearly meets the FA criteria in my view. Thank you, once again, Yomangani, for bringing the article to FAC. We are in your debt. – Tim riley talk 14:00, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Source review—pass

• All the sources are reliable for what they're cited for.
• Checked a few sources and they supported the content.
• Verifiability issues: Some citations were moved to the ends of lines, but did editors check to make sure that the source covers all the information?
• Further reading sources: these also look like reliable sources (especially Hall and Roberts look like they would be useful). Could any of them be used to expand the article? At just 33kb of readable prose, it seems likely that there's more to say about this historic expedition. buidhe 05:41, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks for looking it over. The two books you mentioned from further reading are more concerned with the exciting (dare I say harrowing?) Far Eastern Party and most or all of the other pertinent information is available from the sources used. There is more to say on the expedition, but I think it is best handled in sub-articles as it would unbalanced this article or swell it to unmanageable size - if you look back in the history to before Brian copied his sandbox version over, you can see there is an article approaching a similar size just on the wireless work. (And just 33kb? That's War and Peace for the Twitter generation.) Yomangani^talk 23:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

  I can see the argument for using summary style, especially if there is more coverage of Far Eastern Party than the rest of the expedition. That seems like a reasonable editorial decision. buidhe 22:20, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Support from Cassianto

Very pleased to see this here; my support is unconditional.

• "General plan" section, first paragraph ends without a cite.

  Done. (Though I need to tie down the date).

  Date done too (though Riffenburgh doesn't say where he got it from).

• In the "Aftermath" section, we close with "He was the recipient of many further honours". As he had just received a knighthood, this reads that he had received "many further honours" that day, after the knighthood. Is this the case? If not, "future honours" may be better.

  I'll look at that. "Future honours" sounds a bit strange to me (that's just me, probably). I don't even know if AusEng - which this is supposed to be written in - uses honour or honor.

• The Australian Oxford Dictionary (2nd ed, 2004) gives "honour" as the default, with "honor" admitted as a variant. Tim riley talk 23:14, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks, Tim. Now reworded with an example.

• I've just put the full text through an AusEng spell-checker, and the only thing other than names that it flagged up was "programme". I checked this in the Australian Oxford Dictionary which gives "program" for all uses of the word but adds "also programme, except in computing contexts". But before we're done we might seek guidance from a user of AusEng: Ian Rose leaps to mind. Tim riley talk 08:57, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

• Tks Tim. Yeah I think the AOD puts it well... I always use "program", although that might be influenced by having worked in the IT field, including as a -- ahem -- program manager. So I see "programme" as more BritEng but I wouldn't go round overriding it willy nilly in an Aus-related article.

• I have changed it anyway. Yomangani^talk 23:32, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

• If I can find the time I'll recuse and review in detail but this will have to do for now... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:09, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Aftermath

• "... was killed during the Gallipoli campaign in 1915,and Leslie Blake, the cartographer and geologist of the Macquarie Island party, was killed..." was killed/was killed.

  Yeah, I didn't like that which is why I pushed them as far apart as possible. If you can think of a workable synonym...

  I managed to fudge it a bit.

• "Two days after arriving in Adelaide, Jeffryes took a train heading to his home in Toowoomba, but he never arrived there" -- Do we need "there"?

  No; gone.

• "Appraisal" section, first para, finishes without a cite; and the second para appears not to finish at all, closing with a conjunction?

  Second one was just me being useless. First one might be difficult to cite; I'll have a look but it might just be accepted by everyone without them having to say. Do we still have "likely to be challenged" as a get out?

  Found a source that said it.

Reading this has made me reflect on what a wonderful editor Brian was. I shall miss him and his articles terribly. You have done him a great service with this, Yomangani. Thank you. Cassianto^Talk 22:41, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text

• File:Mawson_main_base.jpg is claimed as source and author unknown, but the source link provided does specify - is there a reason not to trust it? Also, what is the status of this image in the US?

• File:Douglas_Mawson_1914_1.jpeg needs publication info and a tag for US status. Same with File:Antarctica_wind_Mawson_Hurley.jpg, File:Return_of_the_Night-watchman._Hodgeman_pushing_his_way_through_the_snow_into_the_Hut_after_a_visit_to_the_Meteorological_screen_Aae_36697h.jpg

• File:A_voyage_to_the_arctic_in_the_whaler_Aurora_(1911)_(14783726242).jpg: as per the Flickr tag, can more specific tagging be added? Same with File:Unloading_supplies_at_Cape_Denison,_1911-1914_(6438929857).jpg, File:Wild_and_Watson_in_sleeping_bag_tent_on_sledge_journey.jpg

• File:Mertz_and_Ninnis_arrive_at_Aladdin's_Cave.jpg needs a tag for US status

• File:Air-tractor1.jpg: source link is dead, needs publication info and a tag for US status. Same with File:Memorial_cross_for_Mertz_and_Ninnis.jpg

• File:Wireless_Hill_from_the_south.JPG: source provided is a red link, and needs a tag for US status. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:24, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

  Nikkimaria, can you tell me what the requirement is for US status? Most of the images seem to be only tagged with PD-Australia - both the ones you've mentioned as needing US status and the others. It's quite possible I'm missing something - I haven't done this for years and the PD rules change every five minutes (well, they don't, but the interpretation of them does). Thanks Yomangani^talk 00:06, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Everything needs to be either free or PD in the US to be "free" for our purposes. Broadly, anything where we can confirm publication before 1925 will be PD in the US; same with any Australian works PD in Australia before 1996. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

So I just need to add {{PD-US}} to everything? (Everything that qualifies that I can confirm the publication date, I mean). Yomangani^talk 00:26, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

If you take a look at the documentation for {{PD-US}}, it actually breaks down pretty nicely which tag to add based on when and where the image was first published (where that can be determined). Nikkimaria (talk) 01:05, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

All sorted (the Wireless Hill pic has been swapped and the Antarctica_wind_Mawson_Hurley.jpg dropped) Yomangani^talk 12:45, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Support from Fowler&fowler

Hello. I'll be making comments later, but for now, I'm trying to make sense of the first sentence.

• Does "Australian continental landmass" have a meaning different from mainland Australia?

• "Australian continental landmass" means mainland Australia, Tasmania, and Papua New Guinea. You could say "mainland Australia" here, but it is also south of the other two constituent parts so it is a bit odd to exclude Tasmania at least, or you could say "the Australian continent" but that gets you more involved with "which do we count as a continent nowadays, Oceania, Australasia, or Australia/Sahul?", you could even just say "Australia" but "due south from Australia" feels a bit like it should still be Tasmania. I've linked so anybody who doesn't get it can check. It was Brian's choice of wording not mine, but I don't see any reason to change it unless there is a particular objection.

• Entirely concur with Yomangani. The existing wording is clearer and more precise than the mooted alternative. "Trying to make sense" forsooth! Tim riley talk 18:27, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

• Does "due South" have a special meaning here? The longitudinal spread of Australia is 40 degrees (from 113 E to 153 E). The coastal arc running east from Gaussberg to Port Adare is 80 degrees (90 E to 170 E) Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:35, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

  "due south" here means if you head due south from anywhere on the Australian continental landmass you will end up in the area he wanted to explore. Though he might have moved the extents beyond the bounding longitudes of the Australian continent, that describes the area he was interested in; the Weddell Sea or Ross Ice Shelf for example, you wouldn't describe like that. Yomangani^talk 02:03, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Lead

• OK, I'll be moving on. I'm noting for others that Gaussberg is due south of Dhaka, Bangladesh. From west to east, there is Burma, Indonesia lying due north of this coastal region before one reaches the Australian continent. On the east, the segment of the coast lying between 165E and 170E is immediately south of New Zealand, not the Australian continent. In my view, it would be better to describe it more generally, probably by not using direction at all, but maybe distance.) Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:15, 10 February 2020 (UTC) PS I have some support in Britannica whose video on the Mawson and the AAE says between 00:26 and 00:34, "to map the coastal area of Antarctica closest to Australia." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:23, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

  Quite aside from inaccuracy of "map" as the expedition's aim, the Britannica phrasing has the same problem with a lack of precision that you seem to think "due south" has. The current wording is fine as a shorthand for telling the reader where to look, and is further defined by giving the eastern and western limits - anybody reading it as "completely and only the area contained within the bounding longitudes of the Australian continent" is going to be very much in the minority.

  I was typing up replies to all the latest points but lost power in a storm just as I was finishing and being too lazy to type it all out again, I'm just going to give short answers to the points I disagree on; don't take it as rudeness; I might disagree with a lot of your points, but I do think you are picking up some things that need looking at again.

• "the expedition was organized into three bases." Does "base" have the meaning of "sub-expedition?" Or do you mean "the expedition was organized from three bases," or "the expedition established three bases," or "the expedition had three bases?"

  All of these; this is a summary, it doesn't need any great level of detail.

• "outside work" Is "open-air work" meant?

  Yes, as a synonym.

• "sledging parties" Should "sledging" be wikilinked to sled dog? Given the poor performance of the air tractor mentioned later, I'm assuming motorized sleds were not used, or were they?

  I prefer to link that later when it is more closely related; there is man-hauling too.

• "full oceanographic program" Do you mean "physical oceanography measurements" (pressure, temp, salinity, surface currents, underwater currents, ...) given that the collection of biological samples (plankton, krill) and geological samples is mentioned separately? Even experts today might be hardpressed to define what a "full program" meant in the Southern Ocean in 1911.

  You are reading that wrongly after "full oceanographic program" and, having looked at it again, I think that misreading will be rare, so I haven't re-ordered it.

  PS Very sorry to hear about the power outage. My general concern is that the "full oceanographic program" is probably a dated term. I don't hear it much these days, with the ocean being so instrumented. So, even if I have misread the bit after, a better explanation of the full program might be in order, especially in the lead where the reader has a lot to process all at once. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:56, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

  I think readers will be able to get the gist - they aren't generally going to be analysing every word in the lead, as if they want to know more they are are going to read the article or the bit of the article that interests them. At some point there's an article to be written on the oceanographic programme which we can just link.

• "on his return to civilization?" This, besides being an ideological can of worms, is not the common contrast to a land uninhabited by humans (Antarctica). What he was leaving behind, in any case, was in 1914 a defining expression of civilization. I am not sure what is meant, but I suggest rephrasing precisely. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:52, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

  Changed.

• A definition of "civilization": (esp.) advanced stage or system of social development, all civilized States". Whose definition? Fowler and Fowler's. – Tim riley talk 08:16, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

• It is a term somewhat loaded with Imperialistic baggage though, Tim, and the change was painless.

Background

• "In January 1909, a three-man party from Ernest Shackleton's Nimrod expedition reached the location of the South Magnetic Pole" This is considered a claim today, see South Magnetic Pole, or here, or "Follow the needle: seeking the magnetic poles," Gregory A. Good Earth Sciences History, Vol. 10, No. 2, SPECIAL ARCTIC ISSUE (1991), pp. 154-167; p 163) You could say, "... calculated they had reached ..." (Riffenburgh's language in Encyclopedia of Antarctica article on the 1909 expedition)

  It does take the wind out of its sails a bit, but you are right.

• His particular interest lay not in the South Pole, but in investigating the lands west of Cape Adare, immediately to the south of Australia, ... visited since." (Nice; also more accurate).
• As the scheme looked doubtful, ("Scheme" already has a meaning of an underhand venture; would "project" or "enterprise" be overall more neutral?)

  It was fairly dodgy and I was trying to differentiate it from the "project" or "enterprise" of the expedition. Gone for "proposition".

• quickly crossed the Atlantic (What did "quickly crossed" mean in 1910, disambiguated from "quick crossings?" Is "promptly/without delay" meant?
  • I.e. would "As Dawson found the project doubtful, he promptly sailed to America to brief ..." be better? It is also Riffenburgh's description.

    It really needs to convey the worry on Mawson's part; gone for "hurried across" which gives a sense of urgency without committing to a speed and avoids parroting the source.

    • All sound good. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:25, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

• With this assurance, Mawson returned to Australia. (Nice)

Preparations/Aims

• A full scientific and geographical investigation of these lands would be accompanied by a ship-based oceanographic program. (This is the generic language of proposals; it should be qualified a la: A full scientific ... oceanographic program, he claimed (or he proposed); the source says that as well.

  I think that is implied by the section titles and the preceding sentences: "...revealed his plans...","He intended...","Mawson said...". Constant qualifying makes for laborious reading.

  • OK, that's fine. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:25, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

• Could a map similar to the one in File:Dumont d'Urville 1837-1840.svg be added to this section? It would only need to be of the right half, i.e. the world above Eastern Antarctica. I think it would be immensely helpful. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:22, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

  (EC) Not sure what benefit that sort of voyage tracking map would have in this section. It might be possible to do something like File:Antarctic expedition map (Amundsen - Scott)-en.svg or File:Shackleton Endurance Aurora map2.png (without the plotting of routes), showing the proposed (and actual) base locations and pertinent features (and perhaps the bottom of Australia to give it some geographical context). Is that the sort of thing you were thinking of?

  • Yes, the Shackleton-Endurance map is a good one too. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:25, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Mercator is another option as it blows up Antarctica, giving more room. I whipped something up: File:AAE Denison Mercator projection Square.jpg. They could do a much slicker job. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:58, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

    See my edit conflicted comment, obviously the answer was yes.

    What do you think of this: File:Australasian Antarctic Expedition English.png? I realise the labels are huge, but that's so they can be seen in the thumbnail. Yomangani^talk 11:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

    Looks great. I especially like the finer divisions of longitude. (I'm assuming you have the longitude of the Far Western Base, which in the article, at least what I have read thus far, is only generally identified as being on the SIS, 95 to 105E. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:18, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

    Yes, you'll see it later in the article, and it is also marked on the expedition map (which I would have liked to have included but is pointless at thumbnail size).

    Oh. I didn't realize there was an expedition map. Thumbnail or no thumbnail, it is an absolute must in the Oceanography section. It could have a caption: The expedition map showing the research cruises of the Aurora. But don't respond yet. Let me get to that section. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:26, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Ship and equipment

• "The specialist equipment required for the oceanographic program included two sounding machines: a No. 1 Lucas ... shallower depths. ("Sounding machines" in the age of ROVs and sonar is confusing. Many will assume it is some form of early echo sounding (patented 1913) which it was not. I would link it to: Depth_sounding#Mechanisation, maybe even have a "Mechanised sounding line" instead of "sounding machine" (although the latter is what they were commonly called).

Personnel, Finance

• Both nicely done. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:36, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Expedition history/Voyage south

• On 28 July 1911, heavily laden with sledges, dogs and more than 3,000 cases of stores, Aurora left London for Cardiff, where she loaded 500 tons of coal briquettes.
  • As you probably know, there were 48 dogs, all on the decks, (although 50 had been ordered from Greenland). They have been written about: 1) Dogs, Meat, and Douglas Mawson, Australian Humanities Review, 52, 2012 (for DOI) (Elizabeth Leanne works in the English and Antarctic Studies departments of the University of Tasmania) 2) Riffenburgh in Polar Studies 50:2 (2014) (I would recommend removing "heavily," especially when employed just before a mention of 500 tons of coal. Also, "laden with dogs?" )
    • . i.e. What do you think about: "On 28 July 1911, carrying 48 dogs on its deck, and laden with sledges and more than 3,000 cases of stores, Aurora left, ..." (this will also make the reference to "half-drowning" later more comprehensible)

      I'll look at this; I think we want to get across the impression that the decks are crowded.

      • "her deck teeming with the 48 dogs that had survived the trip from Greenland," (A beauty!) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:58, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

        I still think the "and" was my best work

• The rest of the section is nicely written. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:08, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Cape Dennison

Nicely done. I especially note: " ... made their daily readings, regardless of conditions. In rare lulls, efforts were made ..." and "When there was a dearth of birthdays, other occasions were eulogised;" Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:08, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Much as I'd like to take credit for that bit, it was untouched from Brian's original.

Sledging, 1912 .../General plan

• "bring them away" (I hear this in conversation all the time, not to mention in Shakespeare's. But just double checking that you want "bring" and not take.") :) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:08, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Take is more natural to me, but I think bring is preferred for Australian English. I might change round to avoid the need to choose.

• Another couple of days and I should be done. (Flat out of extra time these days.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:08, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

  :) I'm sure that last edit summary is over-modest. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:44, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Far Eastern Party

• and made good distances when weather allowed (made good distance when the weather allowed)

  I think distances is fine. It feels more disjointed, stop and start.

• were forced make frequents stops (^to^)

  Ta.

• which fortunately had not fallen (it is perfectly comprehensible, but in the encyclopedic register, would you want, "which fortunately did not fall?" the past perfect is a bit of contradiction in terms)

  Done

• As he drew nearer to safety, (as he drew nearer to Camp Denison; safety here makes an assumption)

  Thanks to being in the future (relatively) we know it was to safety, but changed anyway.

• Well those are the nitpicks. The rest of the article—and I've read through to the end—is very well-written of course, but the descriptions seem very general. I wish they had a little more on the science. I am aware, of course, of how difficult it is to describe science in high-level heuristics. So I empathize with the enormity of the task. But please don't respond yet, I will reread this section, the FA Far Eastern Party, and the remaining sections tomorrow, and again the day after, and come up with something constructive and concrete. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:51, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
• I have reread the article a third time. I left some notes with references for the future in case the need is felt to expand the science. I have self-reverted as it does not need to be done now. I am happy to support this article for promotion to a Featured Article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:18, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

SG

Yomangani, you must try harder. No instances of "the the", "a a" or "and and". But "Island and" did trick me! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:05, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Yo-man, continuing to work through the little MOS stuff: Wikipedia MOS allows either unspaced WP:EMDASHes or spaced WP:ENDASHes. The article had four sets of emdashes, but oddly, one set of endashes, so I changed the one set of endashes to emdashes for consistency. [2] But then I checked several of Brian's recent FAs, and he seemed to always use endashes. I'm not sure where the emdashes came from; do you want me to switch them all to what seems to have been Brian's preferred style? MOS-wise, it doesn't matter, but since we are trying to preserve Brian's style here ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:55, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

And, Brian's last edited version used endashes rather than emdashes, so unless someone objects, I will switch them all back to his style. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:03, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

That's fine - a a dash is a a dash as far as I'm concerned, so if the the MOS demands consistency we should use Brian's preferred style. Yomangani^talk 09:16, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

OK, I will switch all the the dashes to the the endash which seems to have been preferred by Brainy Brian. [3] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:34, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I am secretly (well, not anymore) hoping the Coords will leave this FAC open for months, just to give us all such uplifting and joyous distractions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:47, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Co-ords, please ignore the above comment. "Nominator being a smartarse" is NOT one of the FA criteria. Yomangani^talk 15:58, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, now they know why I'm not supporting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Graham Beards

This in the Lead "sledging parties covered around 2,600 miles (4,180 km) of unexplored territory" suggests an area because of the word "covered". Perhaps "traversed" would be better? (We have "travelled for a total of" in the Body). Graham Beards (talk) 15:56, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that - "covered" seems like a fairly commonplace synonym for "travelled/travelled across" to me ("we covered 30 miles yesterday", "he quickly covered the ground") and the numbers are a distance not an area. I will change it though if you feel strongly that it is likely to mislead.

Comments and support from Gerda

I miss Brian greatly, and am thankful for the endeveaour to bring his last work here up to FA, thankful to all involved. My 2ct to follow.

Lead

• First sentence: I'd prefer to have mentioned - before "brainchild" - that this was an expedition by whom and when, setting places (on top of time), for readers who don't already know that.

  Trying to avoid anything close to "The Australasian Antarctic Expedition of 1911–1914 was an expedition to the Antarctic by an Australasian party that took place between 1911 and 1914". I think it is fine (basically untouched from Brian's first draft)

• End: it ends now at the single achievement of one person, while I could imagine an additional concluding summary of the achievements of the expedition.

  Good point, I'll look at this.

• I could imagine the map - now next to Preparations - to follow the lead image, to help us understand where the places mentioned in the lead are.

  Do you not think that is better handled in the body of the article? - the lead is meant to give "the basics in a nutshell and cultivate interest in reading on"

  No, or would not have mentioned it ;) - I was impressed by the enormous distances between camps, and on land, which shows better - for me - on a map. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:38, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Images

• I could imagine to have the lead image from List of members of the Australasian Antarctic expedition also in this article.

  I've replaced the Aurora image with a contemporary Hurley photo and there is a image of unloading and another of netting from the ship, so I think Aurora is well represented.

• I could imagine some more pics of people involved, perhaps in a gallery, for a closer look at them. Ninnis and Mertz, and others mentioned by name, perhaps.

  This is meant to be a high level article on the expedition - there are already sub articles for the personnel (some of whom have their own articles), Far Eastern Party, and Western Base Party and there is copious material for articles on other facets of the expedition - so I think the bulk of the photos belong there. This is just to give a flavour.

  While I understand, and agree with the bulk there: seeing more faces would add a personal touch, for me. By some, I mean perhaps the two victims, and camp commanders. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Ship ...

• I'd like a bit more caption for the Aurora pic, time and place.

  Hopefully this request is rendered moot by the new image

• What is a "No. 1 Lucas sounder"?
• What is a "Kelvin machine"?

  Sounding machines - "...the oceanographic program included two sounding machines: a No. 1 Lucas sounder for work in depths up to 6,000 fathoms ... and a lighter Kelvin machine for use in shallower depths". I'm not sure there is anything else relevant outside a specific article for the models mentioned.

Voyage south

• "the trip from Greenland" - I had forgotten the Greenland dogs, and don't recall a trip being mentioned, - I may be the only one missing some explanation or link.

  I can't help your forgetfulness, but I've tried to make the trip more obvious.

Denison

• The little image below the header remains abstract to me at that size.

  Made bigger, but image size and placement relies a lot on how and where you are reading from. It might be tiny for you, doesn't mean it is tiny for everyone.

And here we sit comfortably and warm. What a story! ... told in admirable prose. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:46, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for looking, explaining and acting. Support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:46, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Support Comments from JennyOz

Hello Yomangani, thank you sincerely for this. I've added my comments but please defer to Brian's style if anything I've noted is contrary.

• motor-sledge v motorised sledge - make consistent where appropriate?

  I think they are serviceable synonyms

• base v Base consistencies eg Far Western base v Far Western Base and Main Base v Main base v main base

  These arose because they are general descriptions as well as titles. I've sorted it by dropping the capitalised versions and removing "Far" as the literature calls it the "Western base" as least as often as the "Far Western base"

• There are some members with only surname, (leftover from when Brian separated the personnel list to own article in Oct 2019). I've checked every member and included ones that need first name below.

  Sorted those that needed sorting

• and a lighter Kelvin machine - wlink to Kelvin Hughes? ("The firm manufactured binnacle compasses and deep sea sounding machines, many of which were installed on the great ships built on Clyde side.")

  That is covered better in the preceding link to Depth_sounding#Mechanization but you have tempted me to a redlink for Lucas (which Brian would have probably hated)

• Eric Webb, a 22-year-old New Zealander who became chief magnetician - wlink magnetician?

  That's bit of an Easter Egg link as you end up at Magnetism - not that helpful

• state governments together provided £18,500.[44] Together with private - tweak to avoid 2 x "together"? combined?

  Fixed

• On 8 January, they found a wide - should we add the year when moving to a new one?
• She left Cardiff on 4 August, and arrived at Queens Wharf, Hobart, on 4 November, after a three-month voyage - "after a three-month voyage" not necessary? (I'm guessing that maybe when Brian added this departure date, he did not mean to leave in the "after a three-month voyage"?)

  I'm inclined to leave it - it eases the staccato rhythm as bit

• the land reported by Wilkes in 1839 appeared to be non-existent - that was Jan 1840? His article has "reported the discovery "of an Antarctic continent west of the Balleny Islands" of which it sighted the coast on January 25, 1840." and Brian has in Background section "That coast had been indeterminately explored in the 1840s by the French under Dumont D'Urville and by the American Charles Wilkes, but had not been visited since."

  Just a quick fill that I didn't correct later - the voyage started in 1839

• which they named Cape Denison, after Sir Hugh Denison - not knighted until 1923, remove "Sir"?

  Fixed

• return to base by 15 January, when - add year?
• support parties for the main journeys.[90][89] - ref order

  Fixed

• but early in the New Year there - are caps necessary (usually only used for Jan 1st)?

  Substituted

• they resumed their journey on 4 January - add year?
• and, in particular, the condition of his feet - frostbitten?

  Generally poor condition: skin flaking off, raw, probably a bit of trench foot and frostbite.

• Three days later, Mawson reached the cave, but bad weather - was he able to find stores here, esp nutrition?

  Yes, added (also there was food at the first cairn he found)

• Bickerton, Bage, McLean, Madigan and Hodgeman - Hodgeman needs first name Alfred here. Ditto for Archibald McLean (others okay)

  Hodgeman was already named and linked further up in an image.

  Perhaps name and link him in prose then use as a MOS:REPEATLINK in the caption (just in case the image is removed at some time?)

• but a severe gale prevented the ship from anchoring - do we know how long Davis waited to see if gales would abate, hours, days?

  One day. Added

• The East Coast Party under Madigan left the base - previously written as Eastern Coastal Party

  Fixed

  another tweak ie "Eastern Coastal Party" v. "East Coastal Party"?

• named Horn Bluff, after one of the expedition's sponsors - wlink William Horn (per ref 2 his article)

  Yep. Done

• Their most important geological find was a meteorite, the first discovered in Antarctica - wlink to Adelie Land meteorite

  Done

• produce and edit a magazine, the "Adelie Blizzard" - italics for a mag?

  Apparently so (though I tried it in bold first)

• when strong winds brought down the wireless masts - insert "again" brought down?

  Added "once again" as it gives a more exasperating feel

• Bickerton began practising operating the wireless - insert 'to learn morse code'?

  Probably more to it than that, I don't think the sources restrict it to that or mention whether Bickerton already knew morse.

  Ah, I'd read that in Sidney Jeffryes' article. Ref 1 "Bickerton stepped into the breach, teaching himself Morse code in the process." Also here but no prob if not added.

• instructed Ainsworth to censor - maybe insert "on Macquarie Island" after Ainsworth

  Done

• They finally left Cape Denison on 26 December - I'd add year here
• though he signed a letter to indemnify Davis from responsibility should a disaster occur. - add a ref? was this at Davis's request?

  Can't find any mention of that in the sources, so removed it.

• establish wireless contact with Camp Denison failed - this is the only time Main Base is called Camp Denison

  Fixed

• Sawyer, who had fallen ill, was taken off the island - add Arthur (and wlink to List of Personnel?)

  Done

• replaced by members of the Commonwealth Meteorological Service - swap "Service" to Bureau per previous (doesn't seem to have changed name in that period

  Done

• Macquarie Island and further south towards the Auckland Islands - Auckland Islands not further south than Macquarie? further east? p68 of ref has "A course was then set (N. 46 degrees East. true) for the Auckland Islands."

  Northeast. Done.

• Mawson noted as much in his diary: "I hope the strain won't tell any more of him" - do you have access to Riffenburgh, should that be on him?

  No, it's "of him" - I had thought that was probably a typo too, so I've already checked.

• through the profits from Hurley's film - add Frank, add 'official photographer', add wlink

  He should be mentioned in the personnel section really. I'll sort that. (I have sorted it)

• The outbreak of war later in 1914 delayed - seems obvious but we should change "war" to World War I (or, the First World War)?

  I've just linked it

• loss of public interest as a result of the war.[174] As a result, the scientific reports - reword to avoid 2 x "as a result"?

  Reworded

• Royal Australian Engineers - wlink

  Done

• died after being badly wounded by - badly not needed?

  Not essential but does suggests he died of his wounds directly rather than complications. Also, adverbs are nice to have around.

• Hurley joined the Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expedition - use ITAE here?

  I was breaking it up, to avoid two ITAEs or two Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expeditions within a few words

• Hurley's photographs and films provided a comprehensive pictorial record - ref mentions film singular (though prob many reels?). Also is singular when mentioned in Aftermath.

  That was just my typo.

• including Cape Mawson, Mawson Coast, Mawson Peninsula,[187] Madigan Nunatak,[188] Mertz Glacier,[189] Ninnis Glacier - needs 'and' before "Ninnis" (and if so, remove Oxford comma)?

  Done

• claims on the Antarctic continent,[184]and was - space after ref
• note 7 vitamin A poisoning - wlink to Hypervitaminosis A per Mertz article?
• note 8 New York Globe -wlink?
• Smith 2014, pp. 239. - one p
• Fitzsimons, P. (2012). Mawson - Cap S in name (throughout) and authorlink to Peter FitzSimons
• Cansdale - move to Websites. Change wlink from the US ABC to ABC News (Australia)
• Gorman, M.L. - spaced initials per others?
• Gorman - "Aberdeen University’s penguin egg" - straighten curly apostrophe

  All the above ref changes are done

• image Australasian_Antarctic_Expedition_English.png - something odd here, Sydney appears too far north on coastline.

  I've moved it (Sydney, not the marker in the image. If you are in Sydney and you look out the window now you'll see you are now in what used to be Coff's Harbour.)

• misc - in Air-tractor sledge and in Cape Denison, Boat Harbour is mentioned but not in this Expedition page (which would be expected?)

  The name is more a modern tourist thing, but it does crop up in some of the literature, so I've crowbarred it in.

• misc - winds, a number of linked articles (eg Mawson's, Commonwealth Bay, Cape Denison) name and wlink katabatic wind. Should this, if in sources?

  Added another sentence about different ways they got blown around

That's me for now. Thanks again. As Mr Riley says, "a sad pleasure" to review. Regards, JennyOz (talk) 16:56, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

In case the need is felt for citing Mawson and Katabatic, here is a reference (which I had noted at the time of my review, but not included). It is page 116 of: Cassano, John J. (2013), "Climate of Extremes", in D. W. H. Walton (ed.), Antarctica: Global Science from a Frozen Continent, Cambridge University Press, pp. 116, 102–136, ISBN 978-1-107-00392-7 Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• I think all your points have been addressed now in one way or another. Thanks for the forensics (single curly apostrophe; how did you find that?).

  nothing special, simply by sight.

Thanks Yomangani, I have added a few replies above and have two new minor questions...

• What happened to the H on verandah? I've seen both spellings (verandah and veranda) in the sources but the H is more usual here in Oz.

  I saw some Australian source using the h-free version so I removed it.

• At Sources / Books, is it intentional that the link to the Davis book at Internet Archive does not open in new window (or is this "a thing" I've not noticed before)?

  I think that is because the titlelink is a pseudo-interwiki link.

As none of the extras above are of much concern, I am happy to add my support. Regards, JennyOz (talk) 12:51, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments from 7&6=thirteen

The very first sentence is unreadable. It has fifty words. If you can't figure out this is poor writing, see my user page for supporting studies. Joyceian excess is no way to start off an article. 'tis true that it is nowhere near Longest English sentence.
We honor Brian's memory by furthering and improving the project, not by casting a perpetual memorial to editorial misjudgment. It is way over anybody's ability to understand intelligibly. There was no need for this mountain. It is not up to the standards of a WP:FA IMO. 15:06, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I disagree that it was even remotely difficult to parse and I certainly disagree with the hyperbolic criticism of it here and on my talk page, but I have lightly edited it. Yomangani^talk 19:49, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Bit more of a philosophical discussion on the process than directly related

On the one hand, the sentence does wind a bit, and we expect the lead to be digestible to the average reader, not just the Antarctic aficionados. On the other hand, I can't see a way to do it better that I like. Stopping at the first comma seems too choppy, but my prose stinks. Here are both options, for others to opine. Original Shortened The Australasian Antarctic Expedition of 1911–1914 was the brainchild of Douglas Mawson, who was inspired by his role in Ernest Shackleton's Nimrod expedition in 1907–1909 to spearhead an investigation of the largely unexplored coast due south of the Australian continental landmass, between Cape Adare in the east and Gaussberg in the west. The Australasian Antarctic Expedition of 1911–1914 was the brainchild of Douglas Mawson. Inspired by his role in Ernest Shackleton's Nimrod expedition in 1907–1909 he spearheaded an investigation of the largely unexplored coast due south of the Australian continental landmass, between Cape Adare in the east and Gaussberg in the west. The first sentence in a lead matters. A lot. We should discuss and come to consensus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:55, 19 February 2020 (UTC) One solution might be to lose the final clause, "between Cape Adare in the east and Gaussberg in the west", which may be more detail than the lead needs, and would help reduce the length without having to chop at the first comma. The average layreader might not need to know those specifics in the lead, while the aficionado probably already does know this, so doesn't need it spelled out either. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC) I reedited the first sentence once. That was my proposal. And it was found wanting. I called attention to the problem, but won't edit war. I will leave it to you all to develop consensus. I want the article to be promoted to WP:FA. But I want this to be a lasting and fitting tribute to an esteemed editor. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:57, 19 February 2020 (UTC) I, for one, really appreciate your intent, 7+6. This matters a lot to me because almost every single medical FA has been destroyed by a misguided application of guideline by a small group of editors to restrict sentence length in leads to 12 words, and only so that these articles can be dumbed down for translation to other languages. Tell me that reading the lead of Asperger syndrome, an FA, doesn't give you a staccato headache. Partly for this reason (and others related to same), production of FAs in the medical realm has ceased. I understand your concern, but resist overly short sentences as well. I felt your first sentence was too short, but agree the original sentence was too long. What we do in FAs matters, as they become examples that other editors follow. I leave it to others to solve. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 19 February 2020 (UTC) WP:FA ought to be an attainable goal, not a mythical Chimera. I claim no pride of authorship, so I am not affronted by being overwritten. The strength and virtue of wikipedia is our multiple viewpoints and skills. And there is no such thing as good writing. There is only good rewriting. Everything is subject to editing recrafting and rehabilitation. WE should concentrate on fixing the problem, building an encyclopedi; not fixing the blame. But throwing a Sabot into the FA works is neither helpful nor constructive. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I found the opening sentence a bit tangled too, like I should know what Mawson already did. It's a paragraph that feels like it's not the start of something.I'm sure there are a number of options that would decompress the information in that sentence a bit. Not often do we see "brainchild" as the first noun on a page (other than the article subject). A more literal approach couldn't hurt; I find the first paragraph of Nimrod Expedition, which is also a(n) FA, sets the stage much better. In this first paragraph, it's talking about bases before it's talking about the background/preparation, the ship or any slightly detailed purpose of the expedition. Outriggr (talk) 07:55, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Here is my sample lede: [4]. Also, there isn't a link to Antarctica in the whole article. Outriggr (talk) 08:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I've adopted a modified version of Outrigger's lead. I find it sad that we are writing for people who don't appreciate "brainchild" or "spearhead". Thog hit mammoth with rock.

Oh, I enjoy a brainchild in the right time and place. Some of my best friends are brainchildren.

Lead sentences and paragraph look good to me. 7&6=thirteen (☎)</spa 13:47, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Coord note

I have to admit I wasn't sure about the emotive word "harrowing" in the lead (not that I doubt it was such) but I see it's been addressed up front here and it's the only instance in the article. Thanks Brian, Yomangani, and everyone else involved for your efforts here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:16, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 14:17, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

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