Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ernest Shackleton

< 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 00:09, 31 January 2008.

Ernest Shackleton

edit
Check external links

I'm nominating this article for featured article because...I feel that it meets the FA criteria and is a fascinating subject. This is my first FAC nomination, and I've seen the article grow from a loose collection of prose to a sourced and well-written article (Finetooth deserves most of the credit for the prose). Please let me know how the article can be further improved. Lazulilasher (talk) 16:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - well written and referenced, good use of images, meets FA criteria in my opinion. Note that in the interest of full disclosure I reviewed the Good Article nomination for this, made three edits to it, and gave some feedback on a new map and wording on a sentence. It has been improved since reaching GA. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Two quick, likely minor concerns: 1) there are image sandwiching issues, especially in the Endurance Expedition (1914–16) section; this is to be avoided per WP:MoS. 2) I question the necessity for, or, at least, the placement of the “Expedition advertisement” section. This doesn’t really pertain to legacy and the phrasing “is said to have” seems questionable; does the information here really meaningfully contribute to the article? Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ talk 22:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1.) Thanks for the comments. I think the image sandwiching has been addressed (I removed some images--they are all in commons anyway). 2.) Right, the Expedition advertisement section. Well, we've had some discussion about it. The thing is that Shackleton is related to the supposed "safe return doubtful" claim (there was even a book titled as such and the so-called ad is referenced in many books/media about Shackleton). It's a rather odd situation, because it's a well-known advertisement that probably didn't exist. I see no problem in removing or moving it, if you think it would make the article better--but I think there should be some mention. 23:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC) --- oops, forgot to sign comment Lazulilasher (talk) 23:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Precisely because the supposed advertisement is so well known (even if apocryphal), I would argue for its inclusion in the article in some form to address the "comprehensive" and "factually accurate" criteria. Most readers who have some knowledge of Shackleton will have heard of the ad (I had), but most will not know it is apparently a later invention (I did not). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Not yet - It's not far off and it's a good attempt at covering his life in a balanced fashion, but it's let down by a few omissions and errors at the moment. I've corrected some, but I don't have the time to go through it in detail at the moment, and I don't feel I can support without a good read through. Some points from a brief skim through:
  • Although dropping "The" is fairly common for ship names "the James Caird" is normally used (I suppose so we don't have James Caird himself making a voyage).
Ya, you're right...that makes sense...ha...Lazulilasher (talk) 01:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No mention of The Heart of the Antarctic?
Addressed. His book is now mentioned in the section Interim between Nimrod and EnduranceLazulilasher (talk) 04:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Penguins were also a staple in the camps on the ice (though why the seals are mentioned in a footnote, I'm not really sure)
You're right. We were a bit concerned about length while editing the article, so I cut that portion. Adding it back now. Lazulilasher (talk) 02:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Boss" is usually capitalised
Done.
  • The voyage of the James Caird is unbalanced. Two paragraphs are given over to the description of the sea conditions while the men are not mentioned. Only the lead tells us how many men were in the boat. The last couple of paragraphs of the James Caird article cover this better.
This is true. I'll address it.
Ok, I tried to add a bit more info regarding the voyage of the James Caird. Hopefully it's a bit more balanced out now. Good catch on that, btw, I was subconsciously thinking the same thing but it took another eye for it to surface....Lazulilasher (talk) 04:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mrs. Chippy and the smallest pups were killed soon after the Endurance was abandoned (not after the sledging as it appears here)
Good catch. That must've slipped by...thanks for seeing it. Lazulilasher (talk) 02:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reasons Shackleton intended to head for Deception Island can be cited to South rather than (or as well as) giving a footnote on the benefits of landing there that he didn't mention. He also considered Hope Bay before setting course for Elephant Island
Added some info from South.Lazulilasher (talk) 04:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since you point out his legacy as an inspiration for the writers of management handbooks, you should make more of his leadership style in the rest of the article. He clashed with McNish, and to a lesser degree Vincent and Lees during the Endurance expedition and more could written of his relationship with Scott especially the "sending home" which appears somewhat one-sided at the moment.
This has, hopefully, been addressed. I put in some more text. My editing concern was that the article would appear unbalanced...let me know what you think. Lazulilasher (talk) 04:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In all, every member of his expedition team survived" - is misleading at best. The members of the Endurance party all survived (albeit a couple of toes lighter), but the Ross Sea party did not.
Yep, it is misleading...so it's now...fixed Lazulilasher (talk) 04:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The photo of the "rescue" is actually a picture of the departure of the James Caird in which the Caird was been scratched out (the original negative has a hole in it where Hurley removed it). Might make a nice footnote.
Good point. I added your notes and referenced to "South with Endurance" (the photo collection of Hurley's work....great book, btw if you don't already have it...which it sounds like you do). Lazulilasher (talk) 16:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it is a nice touch to keep the advert in. Whether genuine or not, it concerns the myth of Shackleton, which is as important as the man himself. Yomanganitalk 01:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll dry and dive into the to-do list ASAP. Good catches. Lazulilasher (talk) 01:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a lot better. It looked (from the one spelling clue) like it should be in BE, so I've edited it to remove a few AE idioms. Additionally, there were a lot of "additionally"s, which you probably don't notice after staring at it for months, so I've replaced or removed most of them. A few more points (I'm afraid I haven't got my books with me, so I can't give you references):
Just a quick note before I attempt the meat of the to-do list. Yes, it should be in BE. However, I am absolutely awful at this. I've tried installing a BE dictionary in firefox, so I'll take another run through and hopefully catch some more mistakes....Lazulilasher (talk) 14:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the James Caird the "the" shouldn't be in italics. I think I got all these.
  • There are a few quotes that aren't directly attributed ("bright, good-natured,... and confident" for example)
  • Ranulph Fiennes book has some good stuff on the alternative view of the Scott/Shackleton relationship (i.e. there was no personal animosity).
    • Added information to balance out the Scott/Shackleton controversy.Lazulilasher (talk) 20:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two paragraphs on "Between the Discovery and Nimrod expeditions" are chronologically confused (and I don't think the bit about outfitting the Terra Nova expedition is correct)
    • Fixed, the Terra Nova part acutally is true, interestingly enough. However, it fits better further down in the article. Otherwise, the chornology should read more smoothly. Lazulilasher (talk) 21:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The purpose of the Nimrod expedition should be stated clearly. The "goal was to land a party of between nine and twelve men at the site of Discovery's landing" as an opening rather underplays the aims (I've always liked this photo - if you can squeeze it in it might make a good addition to that section)
    • Clarified. Got the image in to, haha. Nice rough looking photo. Lazulilasher (talk) 21:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the frostbitten toe mentioned in this section that of Brocklehurst? If so that happened during the ascent of Mt Erebus, not when they first arrived.
  • It indeed was. I removed the section as I couldn't find the source. If you have it, I'd like to put it back in. I'm going to search more today and see if I can find anything. Lazulilasher (talk) 17:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Nimrod returned on 1 March, but didn't depart until 4 March
    • This was difficult to get a reference too. I ended up using South (here at the end of page 363. Lazulilasher (talk) 21:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has been suggested (passive, weasel, can't remember exactly who) that Shackleton took McNish and Vincent in the James Caird because they were the most troublesome and he preferred to keep them close rather than leave them on Elephant Island
    • I've read that too. It's been added an the allegation sourced. Lazulilasher (talk) 21:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might be good to give the real title of the Quest expedition in that section
  • "In addition, many books focus on the explorer's work" is a bit of a vague and downbeat ending to the legacy section, especially when you've already singled out Lansing's book. This section doesn't really cover his legacy either. Perhaps something about the end of the "Golden Age" could go here.
    • True. The original sentence has been reworded and bit about the Heroic age has been added. Lazulilasher (talk) 23:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The references/cites are a bit untidy. I don't care, but I thought I'd point it out. Yomanganitalk 12:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well done. Trusting that you'll resolve the points raised by Slp1 below, I'm quite happy to support now. Yomanganitalk 16:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that graphics, including coloured ticks and crosses, are discouraged in the instructions for this process.Tony (talk) 13:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I should have read more closely. I have removed the checks. Lazulilasher (talk) 15:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like this article a lot, and congratulate the editors. I have taken the liberty of editing it a bit myself, but I have a few questions:
  • What does "Through these efforts," in "The mill owner, William Beardmore was impressed with Shackleton and helped sponsor his next expedition,[4] as well as raising funds from his wealthy friends.[6] Through these efforts, Shackleton convinced Sir Phillip Lee Brocklehurst and author Campbell Mackellar to finance his expedition" mean? It seems a non-sequitur to me.
  • The section Nimrod Expedition (1907–09) could do with some reordering. Maybe try to put the information in order of time? It seems disjointed in the way it is organized currently with talk of goals and then that they weren't achieved and then back to the beginning with the coal and Shackeleton's position etc, funding etc. There is lots of repetition about being the furthest south person etc.
  • Endurance Expedition (1914–16) did he have only one colleague giving recommendations? Also not sure who the colleague(s) are. Is it worth avoiding the pronoun "he" for Mrs. Chippy by using "the cat"? Either that or explaining that the cat was actually male. It jarred me when I read it.
    • This appears to be fixed....ya, I put the bit in about "he" (it WAS a he....), but you are correct....it was jarring to read. Article now reads "it". Lazulilasher (talk) 04:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Family : it would be nice to know more about this. His children get mentioned later in the Legacy, but perhaps could introduced earlier as part of the mention of his wife and marriage. In general I would like to know more about this side of the man.
    • Done, please let me know what you think of the changes. Lazulilasher (talk) 15:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Slp1 (talk) 02:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 'problematic' links listed actually work fine from the page itself, but maybe I am missing something? --Slp1 (talk) 01:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the links also work when clicked on from the wikimedia tool. Huh. Wild and wacky stuff. Though, I'm not sure how these tools work, it is possible that I am in error. Lazulilasher (talk) 02:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I too had no problem accessing the links shown in red on the link checker. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - This article provides a fascinating, inspirational account well worthy of its subject. The authors keep the focus on Shackleton, the man himself, rather than on his extraordinary expeditions. Despite the excessive in-line citations (sadly de rigueur for featured articles), the text flows well. The editors take a shrewd line in dealing with conflicting views and information from the published authors.
Also, and irrelevant to the featuring of this article, Talk:Ernest Shackleton could be a featured article too, though not by conventional Wikipedia standards. It shows purposeful, cooperative editing by people with a variety of interests and skills dealing sensitively with subject matter which is surprisingly contentious (at least for those interested in polar exploration!). Thincat (talk) 09:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, thanks for the kind words and support! Lazulilasher (talk) 17:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: 1c (reliable sources) issues: Please see my edit summaries: there are numerous missing publishers, and commercial or self-published sources which don't appear to be reliable sources. I identified a few; there are more. Also, please review image caption punctuation of sentence fragments per WP:MOS#Captions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, I'm working on it....will update when finished :) Lazulilasher (talk) 17:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, I think they've all been fixed. I removed the unreliable sources which you mentioned and replaced them with books (thank heavens for Google Books....I can't imagine sourcing a Wikipedia article without it!) Further, all works cited now have publishers. Lastly, I think that the captions conform to MOS, but I could be wrong. Thanks! Lazulilasher (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've performed a copyedit. A few issues remaining:
  • The cited work 'Cape Horn the Terrible' doesn't appear to be of particularly scholarly origin.
  • "For almost two months, Shackleton and his men camped on an ice floe not far from the Endeavour (Ocean Camp)" - Endeavour?
  • There is a bit of inconsistency in capitalization when referring to a 'party' from the Nimrod expedition. I'd prefer to see 'party' in lower case throughout, but whichever standard is used, the capitalization in "Although every member of the Weddell Sea party that Shackleton had led survived, three members of the Ross Sea Party lost their lives" is off.
Maralia (talk) 21:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the copy edit! Also, I removed the Endeavour part--I'm not really sure from whence that came and the rest of the information is easily verifiable in the sources. Also, 'Cape Horn the Terrible' has come up before--so, it's gone now too. Really, it's fine because we can use Worsley's account to the same affect. Lastly, 'party' is now capitalized when in the form of "Ross Sea Party" but lower case when it is used as "the party walked...". Does this seem right to you? Thanks! Lazulilasher (talk) 22:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Ernest_Shackleton&oldid=1138459841"