Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Shackleton–Rowett Expedition

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 02:15, 17 December 2008 [1].

Shackleton–Rowett Expedition[edit]

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk)

Shackleton's last hurrah: determined to have one more go at the Antarctic that had repeatedly thwarted his desires and ambitions, Ernest Shackleton, in poor health, set off for the implacable continent with an odd selection of old chums. Alas, Antarctica beat him again; he died on the outward journey. Thereafter the expedition was anti-climactic, though of historical importance as the very last chapter of the short-lived Heroic Age of Antarctic Exploration. Credit to User:Yomangan for supplying the map of the ship's track.

The fair use rationale for the Rowett portrait may be queried. I will say in advance that it is important that readers should have the maximum information possible, textual and visual, about Rowett—there is very little on him in the public domain. Without him there would have been no Shackleton-Rowett expedition. He met the whole cost, and should be pictured alongside Shackleton. Thanks, Brianboulton (talk) 00:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I have done a bit of editing on this article, as I had a little run through pre-PR and another one during it, but there wasn't much for me to pick on. Another solid article pulled from the little material available (and it is a better read than Wild's book, believe me). Yomanganitalk 02:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support I gave this a copyedit while it was at peer review. I've reread it just now and only found a few tiny things to tweak. Fine work, as always. Maralia (talk) 03:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Suggestion - Since the Endurance is mentioned throughout the article, I think it would be helpful to have a mention/small explanation in the lede. —Mattisse (Talk) 05:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestion, to tie in with the beginning of the first main section. I've added a few words to lead. Brianboulton (talk) 08:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • What makes the following reliable sources?
    • http://www.sossi.org/articles/tristan.htm
      • Scouts on Stamps Society International (SOSSI) is an international body which supports a large number of publications and other activities related to the depiction of Scouts on postage stamps. Well, it takes all sorts...I would imagine it is the only international body in this field. The information about the flag presentation which is cited to this source can be got from Wild's book or his Geographical Journal report, but a US-based international society with a proven record of publishing stuff over many years seems reliable to me. Brianboulton (talk) 16:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • http://www.south-pole.com/homepage.html
      • South-pole.com is a huge site that covers just about every Antarctic venture since before Captain Cook and until after World War II. I use it a lot. Its reliability largely comes from its being approved by the Scott Polar Research Institute. This is SPRI's Index to Antarctic Expeditions which provides links to what it calls "the best summaries" of expeditions, and every link is to a South.pole.com sub-page. Brianboulton (talk) 16:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave these out for other reviewers to decide for themselves... (hint, Brian, probably a good idea to copy-paste the South-pole.com one into the nom statements from now on... I'll probably always question it for other reviewers to see your reply.. it's not something most "new" reviewers would know about. Have to admit the boy scout one is a new one on me. Might double cite that one, just to be safe.) Ealdgyth - Talk 04:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done as you suggest, and double-cited the scout thing. Somehow, I don't think that site will figure too often in FAC reviews, but, you never know...I note what you say about South-pole.com, and will try to remember to do that. Brianboulton (talk) 09:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great subject, nicely done. ϢereSpielChequers 20:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Very interesting, well-organized account, clearly presented. I do have a question about the Fair use image for the Endurance (File:Quest1921..jpg). Since there are PD images available, as in the Endurance (1912 ship) article, is the Fair use justified? It is a beautiful photo. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That image is of the Quest not the Endurance (which was in pieces at the bottom of the sea by this time). There are no known PD images of the Quest. Yomanganitalk 00:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry! My carelessness. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: Similar to Mattisse's question, I think there is a better license for File:Quest1921..jpg. If the image was taken in the US, it would have a {{PD-US}} template tag. Since you know more about the image than I, could you state that this template is accurate:Template:PD-EU-no author disclosure? If so, it would be a public domain image and you can amend the summary page.

    • The image was taken in St Katherine's Dock, London, some time in 1921 before the expedition sailed. No account of the expedition was published until after 1 January 1923, so PD photographs of the ship are very scarce, if they exist at all. The copyright for this one is claimed by the Scott Polar Research Institute, so I think the suggested template does not apply. It has to be a FU rationale. Brianboulton (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly, would Template:PD-Australia be more accurate for File:Rowett.png?
The picture is attributed to F & A Swaine, and we can't be sure if a) the book was published in Australia (despite the publisher's address) and b) if the picture was first published in the book. The lack of copyright notice in the book doesn't mean that the photo doesn't exist somewhere with a copyright notice, and since it was almost certainly taken in England {{PD-Australia}} would be a bit of a cop-out. I think erring on the safe side with a justifiable FU tag is preferable in this case, but I'm open to persuasion, as there are a lot more images that I could use if this is deemed to fall within the usage rules. Yomanganitalk 18:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The information is from more than one page. pp.98–137. That isn't required anyway, is it? Yomanganitalk 18:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I imagined it was a composite of maps or such. I don't believe it is required, but suggested per Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Adding_images under More information on how to provide a good source. How about adding something like: information for map culled from text spanning pp. 98 - 137 at the end of the source info you have now? --Moni3 (talk) 18:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's something I'm actually not sure of (and does not appear to be clarified per Wikipedia:MOSIMAGE#Images: the sizes of all the images vary quite a bit. What do you think about making them somewhat uniform in size?
    • Lead image and maps are forced, as permitted by MOS:IMAGES. All the others are either standard or upright. I've made Shackleton and Rowett the same sizes, and done what I can to get some kind of uniformity, but some images are just larger than others. Every image accords with WP rules. Brianboulton (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me know if you have questions. Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 18:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No questions. Let me know if you require further elaboration of these answers. Brianboulton (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Ruhrfisch - overall very well done and another great member of the series on the Heroic Age of Exploration. I have a few minor quibbles, mostly MOS issues:

  • In the lead ... and the beginning of the "Mechanical Age" that followed it. "Mechanical Age" seems to be a direct quote and should have a ref per WP:LEAD and WP:MOSQUOTE
    • Ref added (mechanical age is linked in the text, but yoy're right - as I have it as a quote in the lead it must be linked there. Brianboulton (talk) 10:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are some Imperial units that should also have metric equivalents given, for example the weight of the ship ("tons", presumably short tons) and knots. {{convert}} may be useful here.
    • Neither Fisher nor Huntford, who give tonnage figures, say anytning other than "tons". My guess is that they meant imperial tons, since that's how everybody here understands tons - 2,240lb. No one uses the short ton measurement. In view of lack of certainty, rather than have a possibly false conversion, would it be better to add a footnote explaining the uncertainty? Also, I have put the knots conversions (mph, kph) into a footnote to avoid text clutter.
      • I have short tons on the brain from working with American bridge articles, sorry. Of course it would be Imperial tons. Since they are already numbers, I think it would be OK to have the metric ton value after in parentheses, but if you prefer a footnote, that would be OK too. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've put in the metric equivalents in parentheses. Brianboulton (talk) 17:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Do not assume that the figure for tonnage is weight. The ship was originally a commercial vessel, which typically incurred port and canal fees and other charges on the basis of their tonnage, which is volume, not weight. Ships of this era often had tonnage numbers much lower than their displacements; they really have little to do with each other. It is not correct to assume that "ton" means weight, and therefore incorrect to make a conversion. It is safer to assume that, for commercial vessels, the "tonnage" means tonnage, i.e., volume, but that is still an assumption. Kablammo (talk) 21:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thank you for this informative note. Both of the sources say "tons", 125 and 204 respectively. From this discrepancy it is clear that they were using different bases, but all they say is tons. Possibly "125" is a tonnage figure and "204" displacement, but I have no direct evidence of this. However, I will remove the conversions, and will recast footnote 23 on the more authoritative basis of your note. Brianboulton (talk) 22:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should coronary thrombosis be linked in in modern terms, coronary thrombosis
  • Last paragraph of Return section has no refs, but needs them, especially for the direct quote.
    • Don't know how these refs got lost, they were there once! Restored now, thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 10:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hope these help, well done Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • ALl of my quibbles have been addressed - thanks very much, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Beautifully written. The ever-tricky image questions appear to have been resolved. I have three further quibbles about the text.

  • I'd recommend unlinking Davy Jones's Locker, since the link appears in a direct quote in the "Voyage to the ice" section. Linking it here makes it appear to be part of the quote. It's worth linking, so you might want to retain the link in a footnote.
  • A bit further along in the same section, it would be good to translate "2,300 fathoms" as 14,000 feet and 4,300 metres for us landlubbers.
  • The sentence in "Assessment" about the wireless equipment has an extra word in it or is possibly missing several words: "The long-range, 220-volt wireless equipment did not to work properly and was abandoned early on." Finetooth (talk) 20:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Last point, well spotted - extra word removed. Thanks for the review comments. Brianboulton (talk) 21:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support with a few comments:

  • I am a little concerned with the expression "Communists overran" since the goings-on in that part of Russia in 1919 were much more complex. I would prefer "Red Army had captured" or "had occupied" or even "Bolshevicks...".
    • I've made it "Red Army took control of...", with appropriate link
  • Instead of the "w.r.t." here: "The policy of the government of Canada with regard to the funding of expeditions" - how about a simple "on"?
    • You're right – done.
  • I'm not quite sure what the "some" means here: "..the mapping of some 2,000 miles (3,200 km) of uncharted coastline."
    • It's an approximation. I've change dit to "about".

Brian, the usual accolades apply, thanks. Graham Colm Talk 11:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • And thank you for your pertinent quibbles, spot on as usual. Brianboulton (talk) 17:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Very well done. Kablammo (talk) 17:36, 15 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_article_candidates/Shackleton–Rowett_Expedition&oldid=1138471206"