Wikipedia:Peer review/Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expedition/archive2

Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expedition

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because after an earlier version was reviewed in January 2007 many of the issues raised were left unresolved and the article seemingly set aside by its then active editors. I have prepared a thorough revision of the article, using the earlier review as a guide but not as a checklist. I would particularly appreciate comments on structure, MoS and POV issues, clarity and accuracy.

Thanks, Brianboulton (talk) 11:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting through it slowly. Looks pretty good so far, but I don't like the chronology of the loss of the Endurance and the sledging pulls of the boats. For anybody not paying careful attention to the dates it appears that all the sledging was done after the Endurance went down. I think you need to move the final loss of the Endurance to the correct place in the chronology and make more of the movements between the camps and the ship. Yomangani ^talk 16:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll work on this. Meanwhile, can you explain the introduction of Robertson Island in the "Camping on the ice" section? It and Snow Hill Island are two separate places. There is no mention Of Robertson Iisland in South or any of the expedition histories I've got here. Also, the sentence doesn't make sense as it stands:"...Shackleton intended to march the crew to Robertson Island;Snow Hill Island, the base..."

Brianboulton (talk) 23:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robertson Island is mentioned at least in Caroline Alexander's Endurance where Shackleton is quoted (though probably second-hand), and possibly South with Endurance. The sentence now gives the 3 possible destinations separated by semicolons as there was additional information on two of them which made commas confusing: ...Robertson Island; Snow Hill Island, the base of Otto Nordenskiöld’s Swedish expedition in 1902–04, where emergency stores were to be found; or Paulet Island, where Shackleton knew there was a substantial food depot. Needs reworking if it isn't clear. Yomangani ^talk 00:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear, now you've tweaked it. But Robertson Island should have a citation, as the other islands do, and I don't have the Alexander book. Can you give a refce? I have now adjusted the chronology re the abandonment/sinking. Incidentally, above the image in the lead is a set of co-ordinates. How did they get there - they're not part of the article? More importantly, assuming that they represent the position of Endurance at abandonment, the latitude needs correcting by 5'. Brianboulton (talk) 10:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ref added (incidentally your referencing format for the sources isn't consistent). The co-ordinates where probably added during an ill-conceived campaign by a currently banned user to tag nearly every article with co-ordinates regardless off whether they were about a static feature or not (I was a big fan: see Talk:The_Proms#Location_coordinates and Template_talk:Locate_me#Templates_gone_mad). I've removed them. Yomangani ^talk 10:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The timeline is much clearer with the rearrangement. I think it is ready for FAC - the ref formats need tidying up and there are probably some minor MOS issues, but a friendly reviewer will no doubt sort those out. I'm sure Sandy won't mind if you have two running at the same time - neither of them need much work. Yomangani ^talk 13:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've tidied the ref formats as best I can. One defeats me - no 47. This is because it relates to one of the tiny scraps of text left from the earlier version of the article. The reference, cited by a previous editor, lacks a page no. but I don't have the book. I will drop the extract and the ref if they cause problems. As for FAC I think I'll leave it a few days - someone else may want to review it here, and I need to draw breath. I've also got some reviewing of my own to attend to. But I'm sure it will go to FAC.

Brianboulton (talk) 19:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the page number for the Worsley ref. Yomangani ^talk 19:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from User:Ealdgyth -

Lede - first paragraph, second sentence. "of the Antarctica continent" sounds odd to me. "of Antarctica" or "of the Antarctic continent" both work better.
- I've made it Antarctic continent.
Same section and paragraph, I think I'd say "it remains memorable" but that's me.
- Yes, remains is better.
Probably should mention the recent books in the lede, something like "Recent books like (blah) and (blah) have once more elevated the expedition to prominence." or something similar. That's going to be how most folks have heard of this expedition.
- Don't know about this. Many books have been published about Shackleton and his expeditions over the years, as well as films, TV series etc. I wouldn't know which books have "once more" lifted this expedition to prominence, and I think the implication that the expedition was until recently more or less forgotten is questionable. I don't really want to add more material to the article unless I really have to - is this point critical?

No, it's not. I can certainly understand not wanting to add more to an article when it's already 60KB of prose. (Your Wagnarian ref was close to the truth!) Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(57, actually, and that includes 100+ refs and footnotes) Brianboulton (talk) 17:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Origins section, the last sentence of the first paragraph. I'm thinking this sentence is expressing an opinion, and should have a citation. It's the "The nature of his further Antarctic work was uncertain, ..." part that's borderline opinion.
- I've removed the word uncertain, and redrafted the sentence. I'm sure that in this form no citation is required.
Same section, next paragraph, you knew I'd find a quote that needed a citation. (grins) This one is borderline, since it continues in the next sentence, but make me feel good and cite it anyway.
- I've now cited both halves of the quote
Same section and paragraph, the "He had no certainty ..." sentence is a bit word with a lot of t-words. Perhaps "He had no certainty then that this work would fall to him."? It's a personal style choice though.
- I think "He had no certainty.." is one of my quasi-literary constructions that should have been chopped ages ago, so I've reworded it. "He could not be certain..." etc.
Same thing on the opinion on the last sentence of the second paragraph of Origins. The "important information" is opinion, (albeit borderline) and probably should have a citation.
- Yes, I've changed this rather loose sentence, and put in a citation.
Camping on the ice section, fourth paragraph, next to last sentence, the quote needs a citation. (yep, picky me)
- The citation at the paragraph end was supposed to cover the quote, but I've referenced it separately now.
Ross Sea Party section, last two sentences of the first paragraph need a citation, especially the "party was, as a whole, very inexperienced in ice conditions", which is opinion and needs a source.
- Not an opinion, perhaps an unreferenced fact, which I've dealt with by an explanatory footnote.
In the sources, the two websites need to be formatted not to have bald links and need publisher information, and authors where known.
- Someone else will have to do this, I don't even know what a bald link is. I'll get help.

When I wake up some, i"ll try to come over and format it for you. you don't want me doing that until I wake up though. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the because I had to ask department, I see on the page for Perce Blackborow a cat named Miss Chippy. What happened to her? (grins) If you tell me they ate her...
- I'd like to say that at as they trudged through the ice they saw a sign pointing to the Antarctic Cats Rest Home, and they took Mr Chippy there and he lived happily ever after. The truth is....well, at least I don't think they ate him. See Harry McNish page.

All levity aside, very nice article. (Even if they ate the dogs, AGAIN). Ealdgyth - Talk 02:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments and suggestions, & also for the tidying up work (punctuation etc) which you did. I hope to take the article to FAC next week.

Brianboulton (talk) 11:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fixed the links in the refs. The bald links refer to the [1] that were there, which I've now changed to titled links. Looking at those, I'm okay with them as sources, mainly because they give their sources at the bottom of the article. Everything else looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]