Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Heroic Age of Antarctic Exploration

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 00:56, 17 December 2008 [1].

Heroic Age of Antarctic Exploration

edit

This list is an attempt to provide context to the growing number of Antarctic expedition articles within Wikipedia. Although individually organised, with their own objectives, the 16 expeditions of the "Heroic Age", listed here, were part of a common endeavour – the discovery and opening up of the continent of Antarctica, in a concentrated period of activity. A subsidiary list provides details of the explorers who died during this endeavour. This could possibly be hived off and linked to the main list, but I would prefer not to do this if possible. Brianboulton (talk) 22:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "an era which extended from the close of the Victorian epoch to the years immediately following the end of the First World War." Could you give dates so that the readers unfamiliar with one or both periods?
    • It's difficult to give actual dates, because opinions differ over the start and finish, but I have altered the text to read "...close of the 19th century to the early 1920s." Brianboulton (talk) 18:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a bit concerned over comma usage. It seems a bit excessive in places:
    • "a lecture given to the Royal Geographical Society in London, in 1893, by Professor John Murray of the Challenger oceanographical expedition, 1872–76." --> "a lecture given to the Royal Geographical Society in London in 1893, by Professor John Murray of the Challenger oceanographical expedition (1872–76)."
    • "In August 1895, at the Sixth International Geographical Congress, also in London," first comma is unnecessary, I think
      • I've adopted your punctuation for the first sentence and rewritten the second to eliminate commas altogether! I've also checked the rest of the text; I can't see any more obvious overuse of commas but I'll keep looking. (Trouble is, some editors like commas and complain I don't use them enough.) Brianboulton (talk) 18:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Most histories consider that the era extended for the quarter-century until Shackleton's final expedition in 1921–22, although some define it more narrowly, as between 1901 and 1917." Ref 4 supports the claim that it began in 1901, and ended in 1922.. Where are the references to support 1917? Where are the sources to support "most histories"?
    • Changed "most" to "some" - too difficult to prove "most". I've also chopped this section, which deals with the origins and beginnings of the Heroic Age and shouldn't be concerned with when it ended. That discussion belongs in a later section, where I have reorganised the text and added to the references.
  • Are the flags necessary for country? What do they offer, besides colour, that the words themselves don't?
    • I suppose they are not absolutely necessary, but that is true of most images, isn't it? Flags appear on almost every featured list I've seen that has an international content. In this case, since the expeditions were very much flag-carrying affairs, I think there is every justification for keeping them. Brianboulton (talk) 18:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This was the first expedition to winter", "The first expedition to overwinter": What does "to winter"/"overwinter" mean?
    • They mean the same thing - to spend the winter in a particular place. I've changed "winter" to "overwinter" for consistency, and linked the term. Brianboulton (talk) 18:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Full stop and the end of the sentence of the first expedition summary.
    • Fixed
  • "United Kingdom" in the first table, "U.K." in the second. It would be nice to have consistency. If not, it should be "UK", per Wikipedia:MOS#Acronyms and abbreviations and MOS:ABBR.
    • The flag template produces "United Kingdom" in full and I assume it can't be changed. So for consistency's sake I've changed UK in the second table to United Kingdom .Brianboulton (talk) 18:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • (later) But see below; someone has showed me how to fix this and so it is now UK in both tables. Brianboulton (talk) 13:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are 6 deaths listed for the Terra Nova Expedition, but the expedition summary box says "Scott and four companions". Where did the sixth guy come from?
    • The "deaths" table indicates that he drowned in New Zealand, where the expedition ship was overwintering. Brianboulton (talk) 18:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Slicing the Silence: voyaging to Antarctica" I think "voyaging" should be with a capital V, no?
    • Yes. I've also added the book into the list of sources. Brianboulton (talk) 18:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Referencing:
    • Ref 4 needs formatting correctly
      • Done'
    • Refs 3, 6, 20, etc, give "www.south-pole.com" as the website name, but according to the site it should be "South-Pole.com" ***Fixed
    • Same with "www.anta.canterbury.ac.nz" --> "University of Canterbury"
      • Fixed
    • "www.coolantarctica.com" --> "Cool Antarctica"
      • Fixed
    • "www.norway.org.uk" --> "Embassy of Norway"
      • Fixed
    • "www.ast.leeds.ac.uk" --> University of Leeds
      • Got rid of it - site content seems to have changed
    • What makes http://www.south-pole.com a reliable source?
      • I have some reservations myself, which is why I only use it in conjunction with other sources, never as the sole source. On the face of it, it is an admirable resource, covering every significant Antarctic expedition since before Captain Cook, with excellent pictures, good suplementary reading lists and some admirable material, particularly that relating to postal services in relation to Antarctic expeditions. My main reservation is that I can't find out who's behind it. Also, its prose is a bit journalistic and sensational at times. I'd be sorry to lose it altogether, but I suppose it could be demoted to External links? However, as I say, everything cited to it is cited to somewhere else. Brianboulton (talk) 19:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What makes http://www.coolantarctica.com a reliable source?
      • Another multi-purpose site, but this time we know who's behind it - Paul Ward, a teacher and marine biologist, a former member of the British Antarctic Survey Team. The site is very well regarded, having been selected as the "world's best Antarctic website" (see here) I'm not sure of the status of this accolade, but the site is used as a source on other sites, for example this and this. I have no doubts about this site as a reliable source. Brianboulton (talk) 19:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: I have not been checked any other references for reliability.

Looks good, but not there just yet, I think. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 05:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I believe I have answered them all; please let me know if there are still points outstanding. Brianboulton (talk) 19:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. List look OK. I would use UK throughout, especially in the second table, where united on one line, then kingdom, looks poor. Most of the improvement is needed in the introduction, which needs more extensive citing. If the lead is not summarising the article text, then it should be cited, which generally means leads for FLs should always be cited, as thelead is an introduction instead of a summary.Dillypickle (talk) 15:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • On your first point, I had "U.K" in the second table, but changed it for consistency's sake. I could only have "U.K" in both tables by giving the flags up, because the template yields "United Kingdom". As explained above, I don't want to lose the flags, so if consistency is required, it's got to be the longer form in both tables. Personally, I would see nothing wrong with reverting to "UK" in the second table and leaving the main table alone. On my screen display, incidentally, the words "United Kingdom" do appear on a single line.
  • Second point: I have added citations to sentences in the lead which I thought were not covered, or not covered adequately, by the citations in the text. Please let me know if you think there are other statements in the lead that require similar specific citation.

Thank you for your helpful comments. Brianboulton (talk) 01:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Many of your links to individual ships go to disambiguation pages instead. Otherwise good work, I'll put in a proper review over the weekend.--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All ship links sorted out now. Thank you, Brianboulton (talk) 19:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support An excellent article that forms a very interesting summary of the events and the period. I was particularly looking for an explanation of how the boundaries of the age were defined and also an explanation of the potentially "peacock" term Heroic. I was thus very pleased to see well reasoned explanations of both. My minor suggestions are to create an article for each of the ships involved and also to seperate the references into book sources and web sources under third level headings. Very good work.--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support and suggestions. The ships would have to be a long term project, but it would be great fun to do. I've separated the books and the web sources in the sources list, with e-books in the web section. The web sources do not all format in the same way, because some have authors and others not. However, if you think it an improvement I'm happy for it to stay. Brianboulton (talk) 00:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would actually suggest putting the e-books in the books section since that is the way they are formatted, however I leave the style of it up to you (and if you disagreed with my original suggestion I wouldn't hold it against you or the article).--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its just occurred to me, but your German flag is anachronistic, you want  German Empire instead (or German Empire Germany).--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on sources

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC) [reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) A well-written and interesting article. Suggestions:

  • "During this relatively short period the Antarctic " Relatively short compared to what? Comma after "period".
    • Changed "relatively short period" to "25-year period". No comma necessary after period. Brianboulton (talk) 00:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The common factor in all these expeditions was the limited nature of the resources available to them, before advances in transport and communication technologies revolutionised the work of exploration." Also, I don't think the comma is necessary.
  • "by Professor John Murray of the Challenger oceanographical expedition 1872–76" Is 1872–1876 part of the title?
    • No, some words got lost, now restored to text:"...expedition, which had sailed to Antarctic waters in 1872–76". Brianboulton (talk) 00:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During his address Borchgrevink outlined plans for a full-scale pioneering Antarctic expedition, to be based at Cape Adare." Comma after "address".
  • "However, the Heroic Age was inaugurated by an expedition launched by the Belgian Geographical Society in 1897, Borchgrevink following a year later with a privately sponsored expedition."-->However, the Heroic Age was inaugurated by an expedition launched by the Belgian Geographical Society in 1897; Borchgrevink followed a year later with a privately sponsored expedition.
  • "The designation "heroic age" came later; the term does not occur in any of the early expedition " Terms do not "occur", they are written or used.
  • "It is not clear when the term was first coined or adopted generally; it occurs in an article by the British explorer Duncan Carse in The Times" Same as above.
  • "British explorer Duncan Carse in The Times, in March 1956."-->British explorer Duncan Carse in March 1956 edition of The Times. This suggestion is of personal preference, I think the elimination of the repetition of "in" supercedes the slightly increased wordiness.
    • Sentence reorganized to further reduce wordiness. Brianboulton (talk) 00:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some terms are overlinked in the tables {Auora, Ross Ice Shelf, etc.).
    • Repeat links removed from tables. I have linked first mention of the terms in each of the two tables. Brianboulton (talk) 00:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These included wireless, an electically heated crow's nest and an "odograph" which could trace and " I think "which" should be that.
    • Done
  • Sources:
    • WRT to http://www.south-pole.com/, you might as well make it an external link. Removing it from the source list shouldn't have any other effects because as you said, "everything cited to it is cited to somewhere else."
      • Well, I could do this. But I have just discovered, via this, that SouthPole.com has the blessings of the Scott Polar Research Institute. From their Index of Antarctica page you get links to what SPRI calls "the best" expedition summaries, and these links take us to the South-Pole.com pages. I'd say that SPRI's blessing is enough for them to be taken as reliable. Brianboulton (talk) 00:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What does (First Burial) signify on Ref 55?
      • Its a section heading in the site, full name First Burial on the Continent. I have amended the reference
    • Some of your web sources need publication dates (sometimes they are written as date of last update). For example, http://www.adb.online.anu.edu.au/biogs/A100444b.htmd/ http://www.heritage-antarctica.org/english/ExpeditionMembersContinued/ needs a publication date (last update date). Dabomb87 (talk) 21:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Dates added to all web sources, except in a couple of cases were no dates are given. Brianboulton (talk) 00:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments & the help in improving this. Brianboulton (talk) 00:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

  • It is a shame, but some of these images may need to go. Image:DrWSBruce1905.jpg will do, as I doubt a fair use claim is justifiable here. Also some of the licensing tags might not be correct, so i'd recommend asking an experienced image reviewer like User:David Fuchs to take a look at the images. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 00:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you indicate which images, apart from Bruce, you are questioning? Alternatives might be possible. Also which licensing tags you think are incorrect? Bruce is a problem, in that I'm pretty sure no free image exists anywhere. Probably it's no FU, no Bruce. Brianboulton (talk) 09:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of clarity, is the above image the only fair use image used in the article? I'm afraid I am not sufficiently versed in the rules governing fair use to comment on whether the image should or shouldn't be removed as according to wikipolicies, but from an aesthetic point of view it would certainly be a shame if this or other images had to go. Its removal or not would not affect my support either way however.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, Bruce is the only fair use image. I don't know what the other image queries are. Wikipedia allows use of non-free images considered essential to the article, or the reader's understanding of it, provided no free version are available or can be made. Thus the Bruce image was approved on his biographical article and on his expedition article, there being no free versions to be had. As Bruce is not the focus of this article, merely an important element of it, the image's free use may be considered unjustified. But we must await the comments of an image reviewer. Thank you, anyway, for your comment. Brianboulton (talk) 23:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comments from Rambo's Revenge as requested by me. Brianboulton (talk) 00:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The world of images is a bit of a minefield to me. However having observed other image reviews I will outline anything that might be problematic. I may me completely wrong about all of these, and this is just my opinion when trying to be as picky as possible. Being inexperienced with images I have replied here and not on the FLC page.
I've added details of the first US publication which was 1920. Brianboulton (talk) 23:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Otto Nordenskjöld.jpg, date unknown. So cannot confirm first publication and that it is PD.
  • For images marked with "No known restrictions on publication", like {{PD-Bain}} the site states that "These facts do not mean the image is in the public domain"[2], so can these be used?
Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the basis of the above comments the queried images, apart from Bruce, are:-
  • Nordenskjold, because the publication date is unknown and PD cannot therefore be confirmed.
  • Charcot, a Library of Congress photograph from the Bain collection. As stated above, the site says "These facts do not mean the image is in the public domain...", but this statement goes on: "...but do indicate that no evidence has been found to show that restrictions [on publication, distribution etc] apply". This seems pretty conclusive to me—the image may be used, but should further evidence be found, restrictions can be imposed.
  • Filchner, another from the Bain collection, so the Charcot remarks apply.

On this basis I will remove Bruce, and also Nordenskjold until/unless I can establish original publication. I will leave the others in place until further confirmation is available. Brianboulton (talk)

(Later) I have also removed the repeated Charcot and Shackleton images, which makes the missing images look less isolated, I think. Brianboulton (talk) 00:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 13:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK.

    • No problem with Mawson, the photograph was published in the US in 1915 and I have added the template.
    • Shirase: no more information than that on the existing template. I can't confirm publication in the US o I'll take the picture out.
    • Charcot: your comment is cryptic. Does the unwritten part of the sentence continue "and must therefore be withdrawn"? Clarification, please.
    • Finally, does this complete your image review?

Thanks for your time,anyway. Brianboulton (talk) 16:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • I think that takes care of all my otherconcerns; for the Baptiste image, you have a LoC no restrictions template and then a pd-template per work of the US gov't. It doesn't appear to be the work of the US gov't, and either way you should only have one of the licenses (the first one.) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note for reviewers: In view of the loss of some images from the main table, and the possible impression this may have on readers about the relative importances of expeditions, would it be a good idea to remove all the images from the table, and have a gallery of a few selected images at the end? I've tried this in a sandbox - please see for yourself at User:Brianboulton/Sandbox4. Advantages: uniformity in the table, number of images in the gallery can be varied without disturbing the table. Disadvantage: Images distanced from their text. And I've got a feeling that WP doesn't like galleries. But I'd be interested to hear what people think. Brianboulton (talk) 18:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind image galleries, but if you did it, is it possible to centralise the gallery instead of having it at the left side of the page? Also, it's UK, not U.K. or U.K. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the UKs. I am investigating WP:GALLERY to see if it is possible to centralise (I know nothing about galleries so any advice is welcome). The question is, does the list look better with a gallery than with the partial set of pics in the list? If the consensus is that it doesn't, then I won't spend hours on the gallery option. Brianboulton (talk) 01:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The gallery is now centred. I will shortly transfer it here, so that reviewers can see it in full context. I think it presents better than the intermittent images at present in the list. Brianboulton (talk) 17:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Later) I have uncovered a source which will provide PD images for some of the missing faces, so I am holding off on the gallery for a bit. Brianboulton (talk) 18:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The list now has images in every slot. I am awaiting confirmation of the licensing details on Charcot, that is all. Brianboulton (talk) 17:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
None of the image reviewers I have approached has identified problems with the images as they now stand, however reluctant they are to come to the page and say so. I have done all I can to meet image queries, and am satisfied that all is in order on that front. The article/list should be judged as it is. Brianboulton (talk) 16:38, 14 December 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_list_candidates/Heroic_Age_of_Antarctic_Exploration&oldid=1138480395"