Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Terra Nova Expedition

< 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 00:05, 20 February 2008.

Terra Nova Expedition edit

Check external links

Self-Nominator Brianboulton (talk) 11:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC) I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has been developed significantly during peer review, following its successful GA nomination, and I think now warrants FA status Brianboulton (talk) 11:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per my comments at peer review. Another well structured, balanced, and thoroughly researched article. Yomanganitalk 13:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
    • Single years shouldn't be linked.
    • There's incorrent date formatting in an image caption
    • En dashes are needed in page ranges
    • Page numbers should be consistently formatted
    • There's some incorrect dash usage within the prose and headings eg. Jan–March 1911 (and the months shouldn't be abbreviated)
    • Units in bracketed conversions should be abbreviated
    • Some dates within the prose need linking
    • The external link in the "see also" section should be removed
    • Logical quotation should be used. Epbr123 (talk) 15:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I reviewed this article for GA, and think it is very well written and thoroughly researched. But I have to also echo Epbr123's concerns regarding the manual of style and copyediting concerns. In reviewing for GA, I had done some minor copyedits to fix much of this (like removing month/day and single year wikilinks), as well as some external links. Although I see now that, in the recent editing to bring it up to FA status, that much of these wikilinks have made it back into the article. From the completeness and prose perspectives, I think can support this article; but until the article is in compliance with WP:MOS, I cannot support. Dr. Cash (talk) 16:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have attempted to deal with all the above points, I hope to your satisfaction Brianboulton (talk) 23:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few sample edits might be helpful here; Brian is a somewhat new editor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm learning slowly Brianboulton (talk) 23:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a good trawl through WP:MOS and am a bit embarrassed about the amount I had not absorbed before. I have been through the article again, and apart from one or two instances where I'm not sure, and possible oversights, I think it now complies with the style required.

My apologies for not doing this before Brianboulton (talk) 17:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Want to give us the couple of instances you're not sure about Brian? See if we can help out? Carré (talk) 17:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK. First, in the Cape Evans section, is the format of the hut measurements correct? I'm not sure about the spaces around the multiplication signs, but it looks ugly without them. Secondly, I've referred to "tons" as weights without specifying long tons or short tons in the text. I'm not familiar with this concept - imperial or metric, yes, but I've never come across long or short. What should I show? Brianboulton (talk) 22:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hokey dokey, let's see. Tons first: a long ton is an imperial ton. A short ton is the US standard ton (kinda the same as why an imperial pint is bigger than a US pint, I guess). Both are different from a metric tonne. In this context, I would imagine the "ton" in question is a long ton. For the multiplication sign, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (mathematics)#Multiplication sign – use a spaced &times; There :) Hope that helps. Carré (talk) 22:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for helping hand, Carré ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks Carré. The term "long ton" is unfamiliar in britain so I've specified by footnote which ton I mean. From what you say about the hut dimensions, these appear to be OK in the text. Thank you for your help Brianboulton (talk) 10:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Excellent article with impressive narrative structure. Very balanced and unbiased view of Scott's ill-fated expedition. I appreciate the way in which the article deals with criticism and support of Scott's decisions. Very well done. Lazulilasher (talk) 18:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question – can you explain the difference between geographic mile and statute mile (here, I mean, not in the article)? Looking at statute mile (a redirect to mile), it seems statute mile was defined in the late 16th century as 5,280 ft, while the international mile was standardised also at 5,280 ft in 1959, but there's no mention of a geographic mile. Do you really mean nautical mile? Or something else? Ta. Carré (talk) 20:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, never mind, I found geographical mile. Might be worth a wikilink there though, if you feel it necessary to keep that little used unit in. Carré (talk) 21:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"geographic" was a typo - should have been geographical. I have corrected and, as you suggest, linked Brianboulton (talk) 22:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant oppose Comment Support. This is a fascinating article, but I think it needs copyediting work. I'll see if I can make a pass in a sandbox and communicate with the nominator directly; I started commenting on individual points but found there were too many for it to be economical. Mike Christie (talk) 16:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am in discussion with Mike Christie over these points Brianboulton (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Brian and I have agreed on a copyedit, and I've reduced my oppose to a comment. I do have some other points I'd like to mention. (I'll outdent the list to simplify the edit formatting.)
  • I think a map is very desirable. Cherry-Garrard's map and the overall map of Antarctica are very useful, but a map showing more of the many landmarks and locations mentioned in the article would be really handy. Given the two maps in the article I would not oppose over this, but I think it would benefit the article. A non-exhaustive list of things mentioned in the article that aren't visible on either map: Hut Point, the expedition routes other than the polar Party, the Western Mountains/Transantarctic Mountains, Ross Island, the Skuary, Cape Evans. Not every location in the article needs to be findable on a map, though; many are described with reference to other points.
I think such a map might be hard to find, but I'll see what can be done - it may take a while Brianboulton (talk) 23:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The footnoted reference to Atkinson receiving a medal later should probably get the details of the source you drew that from; that's not something that is obviously going to be part of one of your overall references. You can't put a footnote in a footnote, so I'd suggest just giving the reference details directly inside the footnote.
I've extended the footnote to give the details Brianboulton (talk) 23:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was Oates' sacrifice recognized as deliberate by Scott in his diary? I don't recall, and I think it's a detail worth noting.
I've added a reference here, to Scott's diary entry 17 March. Scott says: "We knew that poor Oates was walking to his death, but though we tried to dissuade him we knew it was the act of a brave man and an English gentleman". Brianboulton (talk) 23:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The final entry from Scott's diary is a direct quote and needs a citation.
It now has it Brianboulton (talk) 23:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If Scott's diary has been published in whole or in part, that would be a useful reference to add to the list (or to add to "Further Reading"). Or is that the Smith Elder book? If so, might be worth saying so.
Vol I of Scott's Last Expedition (SLE) is Scott's diary. I've added a note in the Sources section Brianboulton (talk) 23:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another place where a citation is probably worth adding is where you say that Cherry-Garrard was troubled for the rest of his life. I don't recall whether he explicitly says this in "Worst Journey".
He doesn't say it, but he wrote Worst Journey in 1921 and lived another 38 years. Others have said it and I have added a suitable citation from a choice of several Brianboulton (talk) 23:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd suggest a citation (you can probably get one out of Huntsford) for the paragraph starting "The loss of Scott and his party overshadowed all else", since it's opinion. It's not really controversial, so I'm not too concerned if you don't have an easy ref for this, but it would be good to have since it makes quite a general assertion.
I've cited this to Huntford. Brianboulton (talk) 23:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found "calorific values were seriously over-estimated" is ambiguous -- did they over-estimate what was in the rations, or what was needed? I worked it out easily enough, but I'd suggest rephrasing.
I've rephrased: "the calorific values of the rations used were seriously over-estimated" Brianboulton (talk) 23:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
-- Mike Christie (talk) 21:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I hope I've answered your points. I'll start looking for a map. Brianboulton (talk) 23:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Everything except the map has been addressed; switched to support above. I'll answer your note about the proposed map on my talk page. Mike Christie (talk) 07:53, 19 February 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/Terra_Nova_Expedition&oldid=1078807498"