Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ernest Joyce

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 User:SandyGeorgia 04:04, 17 July 2008 [1].

Ernest Joyce edit

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk)

I'm nominating this article for FA. Heroes aren't always strong, silent and self effacing; sometimes they are self-aggrandizing braggarts. They can still be heroes. This article is about a hero who was also a boaster. It's had lots of attention at PR, and I believe it now meets the FA criteria. Thank you very much Brianboulton (talk) 23:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - I didn't find any major issues. It is well-written and sourced to reliable books. However, there might be the odd bit of wording that could be tweaked. For example, in the lead, I changed "in the first decades of the 20th century" to "during the early 20th century" - "first decades" doesn't mean anything, so you might as well say 'early' instead. Better yet, be specific and tell the reader the dates. Another thing to consider is converting the footnotes to use the Harvard template, but this is not mandatory or necessary. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 12:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you. To give all three expedition dates would be a bit cumbersome; could say "between 1901 and 1917", I suppose? Brianboulton (talk) 16:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I made a couple of minor edits, but overall I have to say this is exemplary. Well written, comprehensive and fascinating. Excellent work. Gwernol 12:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Current ref 73 (Joyce's formal report to Shackleton..) has a non-formatted link in it. Should have it with a fancy title.
Otherwise sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Brianboulton (talk) 16:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I'll have time to review this later, but hoping to. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I recently peer reviewed this and thought it was FA ready then, recent changes have only improved it. Well done and a fascinating read, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: In the interest of full disclosure, I should say that I peer reviewed the article and did some light copyediting. This is an excellent article about an interesting character. Finetooth (talk) 05:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and comments no major issue, two comments
I would italicise de facto - but I might be wrong
I think, in terms of best practice, you are probably right. I'll italicize - if I can remember where it is. Brianboulton (talk) 16:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All five were by now showing symptoms of scurvy. Within a relatively short time at Hut Point, however, a diet of fresh seal meat enabled them to recover. Scurvy is vitamin C deficiency. Seal is not a fruit or vegetable, please explain. Also however is redundant jimfbleak (talk) 13:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fresh seal meat - in fact, any fresh meat not overcooked - is a plentiful source of Vitamin C, and an effective preventive and antidote to scurvy. In 1916 they knew the antidote bit, but hadn't cottoned on to its preventive powers, so continued to pack their sledging rations with dried and processed foods, and continued to catch scurvy. Brianboulton (talk) 16:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for another much enjoyed article. As usual, I couldn't resist a little tinkering, but nothing I would object to being reverted. I have a few comments, but they do not amount to much:
  • I don't think de facto is needed here.
It does properly describe Joyce's position as acknowledged but unofficial leader, and it's briefer than saying all that.
  • Would when refusing be better than in refusing? - Agreed
  • I think his fathers would be better than the fathers because the article is about Joyce, not the family. - Agreed
  • I didn't like fit him, would prepare him be better? - Agreed
  • Again, I didn't like arrived en route, would stopped en route be better? Better still can we find a way of not using en route and use on the way to? - Agreed
  • What is so special about Barrier weather?
I've put in a short footnote reminding the reader that it was treacherous Barrier weather that help do for Captain Scott a few years earlier.
  • I find them almost impossible to spot, but is there one of those dash errors after outright invention?
It was a properly-formatted ndash, but since I have used mdashes elsewhere in the text, I've upgraded it.

Thanks again for a damn good read. (PS, nothing to do with the article but you don't catch scurvy, you get it ;)).

(Yeah, I noticed that after I'd posted it but was too idle to change it.)

GrahamColmTalk 09:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your tinkerings are fine. Thanks for your help & support. Brianboulton (talk) 09:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Later) I have found a better Shackleton, image from Library of Congress, and have now installed that.
    • Image:Bay of Whales broad.jpg: This was placed in the public domain by its author, P. Bond, who left no information as to date. It can only be dated as "before September 2007", the date of the upload. Brianboulton (talk) 22:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Image:The aurora.jpg: Corrected source information, and included date. Brianboulton (talk) 22:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Image:AuroraCrewRoss.jpg:Description corrected, and correct date added. Brianboulton (talk) 22:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Image:The aurora.jpg and Image:AuroraCrewRoss.jpg need more information. They are listed as being taken in 1916 and 1917, but no date of publication or author is given, so we cannot evaluate copyright status. --NE2 08:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have established that the Aurora photograph was first published in Shackleton's South, Wm Heineman, London 1919. I have added this information to the image description. As to the AuroraCrewRoss image, I am continuing to seek information concerning its source. Will delete if necessary, but reluctantly. Brianboulton (talk) 11:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • My enquiries have established that a very similar photograph to the AuroraCrewRoss image was taken by A H Ninnis, who died in 1956. I cannot establish whether these group photographs were ever published - my suspicion is that they were not. I am therefore deleting this image from the article. Brianboulton (talk) 20:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments—Look, it's not bad now, and I hope it's promoted. But PLEASE get a new word-nerd to check throughout the text. I shouldn't be picking up things like this at random, just at the top.

  • See MOS on no dots after captions that aren't real sentences, like the first caption.
    • Someone has fixed the first caption. I fixed another, where a stop was required. I think all is well now. Brianboulton (talk) 12:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Long, winding sentence at opening: "He came from a humble seafaring background, began his naval career as a boy seaman in 1891, and ten years later joined Captain Scott's Discovery Expedition, 1901–04, as an Able Seaman." Try this: "He came from a humble seafaring background, began his naval career as a boy seaman in 1891; ten years later, he joined Captain Scott's Discovery Expedition, 1901–04, as an Able Seaman." Check for any other snakes.
    • I don't much like your suggested wording with its semi-colon. The sentence isn't actually shortened. I've decided to make two sentences of it, placing a stop where your semi-colon is. Brianboulton (talk) 12:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The details of.
    • I don't know what you are drawing my attention to, here. Brianboulton (talk) 12:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "not known"—"unknown".
    • Either seems OK to me, but I've adopted your suggestion Brianboulton (talk) 12:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "progressing over the next 10 years"
  • "the latter year"—only when there are two of them. Here, it's 11 years, so "last".
    • I mentioned two years in the text, 1891 and 1901. Of these two, 1901 is the latter. However, to avoid any further argument, I have changed it to "last-named". Brianboulton (talk) 12:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but took readily to the life,"—um .. "seafaring life"?
  • "in an attempted climb of Mount Erebus, ascending to some 3,000 feet (920 m)."—"to attempt a climb of Mount Erebus, ascending to some 3,000 feet (920 m)." BTW, how did they know their altitude in those days?
    • I've decided I don't like the phrase "a climb of" so I've adjusted the text to " an attempt to climb Mount...". As to how they knew their altitude, they had equipment (theodolytes, etc) and could work things out. The height of Everest was established in 1841, and this was 1904. Brianboulton (talk) 12:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider "however" at the start of a new clause, not stuck in the middle. Whoever spread about the idea that the middle is elegant should have been horse-whipped: flag the angle to the reader at the start. Same with "Therefore".
    • Again, someone has gone through and adjusted the howevers and therefores. However, despite your vehemence on the topic, it's only your opinion, not a established rule of style or grammar. Perhaps you should express yourself more tolerantly, where others think differently?
  • Date audit yielded some glitches (extraneous comma, incomplete autoformatting. I've removed the damned auto-lemon, which is no longer required by MOSNUM, thank the lord. TONY (talk) 08:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think that word-nerds, whoever they are, can add much at this stage, but I will go through and check for any further egregious violations, solecisms, cock-ups etc. Brianboulton (talk) 12:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brian, I'm still not clear on the images here; can you ask Elcobbola (talk · contribs) or Kelly (talk · contribs) or NE2 (talk · contribs) to revisit? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There should now be no image problems outstanding. Of the two left in abeyance by NE2, - the Aurora ship image and the survivor group - I have deleted the latter because I cannot confirm publication before 1923. Meanwhile, Elcobbola has dealt with the medal image, also (sadly) deleted. I did ask NE2 to revisit, but he hasn't. I hope that's clear now. Brianboulton (talk) 16:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: NE2 has revisited, and struck out his queries on all images except the now-deleted one. Brianboulton (talk) 16:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I corrected sourcing on two images on the Commons side; Image:Albert Medal in Gold for Life Saving.jpg is still a problem. If this photograph is from 1914-1918, as the image page asserts, then I'm the queen of Spain. This is obviously a contemporary photo of a medal from a 1914-1918 conflict. The source, in fact, asserts copyright with non-derivative and non-commercial provisions. We can't use this. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Medal image has been removed. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 16:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Ernest_Joyce&oldid=1138459832"