Talk:William Speirs Bruce

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article William Speirs Bruce is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 3, 2009.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Science and Academia (Rated FA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the science and academia work group.
 
WikiProject Antarctica / Argentine Antarctica / British Antarctic Territory  (Rated FA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Antarctica, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Antarctica on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Argentine Antarctica work group (marked as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by British Antarctic Territory work group (marked as Top-importance).
 
WikiProject Scotland (Rated FA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Truncated biography[edit]

Does anyone intend to continue this article, which stops when Bruce was 26 years old and has nothing whatever to say about the important events of his life? At present it is hardly more use than a stub. Brianboulton (talk) 00:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately I was unable to complete the biographical entry I started. Please feel free to continue it, or to dispense with it as you see fit.Imkgeo (talk) 11:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I am intending to build up the Scottish National Antarctic Expedition first. When I 've done that I will tuen my attention here. Brianboulton (talk) 11:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I am now working on the extension of this biographical article. Because my sources are different from those used by Imkgeo I have had to abandon most of his/her material as I can't cite it. Brianboulton (talk) 21:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Citations[edit]

Please note, this is not a GA review, but it may help with future review processes.

The internet inline citations used in this article are improperly formatted and this problem may hinder a GA nomination. Internet citations require at the very least information on the title, publisher and last access date of any webpages used. If the source is a news article then the date of publication and the author are also important. This information is useful because it allows a reader to a) rapidly identify a source's origin b) ascertain the reliability of that source and c) find other copies of the source should the website that hosts it become unavaliable for any reason. It may also in some circumstances aid in determining the existance or status of potential copyright infringments. Finally, it looks much tidier, making the article appear more professional. There are various ways in which this information can be represented in the citation, listed at length at Wikipedia:Citing sources. The simplest way of doing this is in the following format:

<ref>{{cite web|(insert URL)|title=|publisher=|work=|date=|author=|accessdate=}}</ref>

As an example:

  • <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.discovery.org/a/3859|title=Avoiding a Thirty Years War|publisher=www.discovery.org|work=[[The Washington Post]]|date=2006-12-21|author=Richard W. Rahn|accessdate=2008-05-25}}</ref>

which looks like:

If any information is unknown then simply omit it, but title, publisher and last access dates are always required. I strongly recommend that all internet inline references in this article be formatted properly before this article undergoes GA review, and indeed this is something that a reviewer should insist you do before promoting your article. If you have any further questions please contact me and as mentioned above, more information on this issue can be found at Wikipedia:Citing sources. Regards

In response to the (unsigned) above I have reformatted the inline citations. I would point out, however, that the properly formatted information per {{cite web}} is included the Sources section. Brianboulton (talk) 15:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:William Speirs Bruce/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

A very nice article that I am happy to pass for GA. I have appended a list of comments to consider, but none is significant enough to warrant a delay to this nomination.

  • "but his perspective changed" I think interests is a better term than perspective here
    • "Interests" isn't really strong enough; his whole outlook changed. I think "outlook" is the word.
Good call, better.
  • "its unusual spelling has caused repeated problems." - a bit vague, what kind of problems?
    • I've expanded (confusion with the more common "Spiers")
  • You need to provide a better introduction to the second section than "The main object of the Dundee Whaling Expedition, 1892–93," the title alone is not enough. Something as simple as "The Dundee Whaling Expedition of 1892–93 was an attempt . . ." would do the trick.
    • I'm sorry, but I don't understand the objection. The whole first sentence of this section reads: "The main object of the Dundee Whaling Expedition was to investigate the commercial possibilities of whaling in Antarctic waters, by locating a source of "right" whales in the region". That (with links) seems a pretty clear and comprehensive introduction to me
The problem is that this is the very first time the DWE is mentioned, and beginning the sentence with "The main object of. . . " suggests that we are already aware of the existance of the expedition, which a reader is not. The alternative I suggested above is a small change but it eliminates this uncertainty.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • "Robert Rudmose Brown" - who is he? (i.e. Explorer Robert Rudmose Brown said . . .) link him if he is notable (if there is no article, make one).
    • Rudmose Brown was the botanist on the SNAE, later co-author of The Voyage of the Scotia and later still, Bruce's first biographer. I've expanded the text a little, and redlinked him. When I can find out some basic information (dates etc) I'll do a stub for him.
      • On investigation I found a wikipedia article "Robert Neal Rudmose-Brown", so I've linked to that. Don't know where the hyphen came from.
  • MP Charles Price should (red)link to Charles Edward Price.
    • OK, done
  • "but was politely ignored." - how (this seems a little counter intuitive).
    • It's the sense of the source, but I've reworded in a non-interpretative way
  • "and had to deal with the closure of his laboratory, but his health was failing" - shouldn't that be "as his health was failing"?
    • I've reworded this sentence.
  • "and another time" - Should be "and on another occasion".
    • Agreed and done.

Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for this review and your helpful comments. Brianboulton (talk) 09:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting[edit]

Dear fellow contributors

MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether or not dates are autoformatted. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. I'm seeking feedback about this proposal to remove it from the main text (using a script) in about a week's time on a trial basis. The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text in the prevailing format for the article, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. BTW, anyone has the right to object, and my aim is not to argue against people on the issue. Tony (talk) 12:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Scottish?[edit]

He was born/grew up in England and had a Welsh mother. Did he see himself as "Scottish?" If not, calling him British is more neutral.--85.211.120.106 (talk) 13:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)