Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Scottish National Antarctic Expedition

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 01:14, 6 August 2008 [1].

Scottish National Antarctic Expedition[edit]

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article. It is a sister article to William Speirs Bruce (FA 2 July 2008), and tells the story of his hugely successful but generally forgotten Antarctic expedition of 1902-04. This was carried out in the shadow of Captain Scott's Discovery Expedition, which got all the glory although arguably achieving much less. The article has been a GA sine May, since when it has been peer reviewed meticulously and further revised by the nominator. In my view it is ready for its FA baptism. Brianboulton (talk) 15:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources still look good, double checked them again after the peer review. Links all checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Not quite yet~~Support. I am pleased to see that Brianboulton has largely kept his opinions out of the article. Nevertheless, this half-paragraph is not neutral; it's a effort to correct the sources that offend him:

It is typically confined to a passing mention or footnote, often with little regard for accuracy—Elspeth Huxley, in her 1977 biography of Captain Scott, dismisses the Scottish National Antarctic Expedition thus: "There was Bruce’s venture shortly to sail in the Scotia to the Weddell Sea; this, too, got trapped in sea-ice and returned without ever reaching land". Fiennes also stresses that Bruce "failed to make a landing on the continent", while mentioning none of his successes.

Without this, it would be an excellent article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would welcome other views on this. Personally I don't think it is POV to point out inaccuracies in the remarks of writers commenting on this expedition. These inaccuracies arise from their lack of knowledge, which in turn derives from the low profile given to the expedition by historians, compared with the much-chronicled adventures of Scott and Shackleton. There is no question of my trying to "correct sources that offend" me; they merely illustrate the point I was making in the article. But, as I say, I am prepared to be guided by consensus. Brianboulton (talk) 00:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When an otherwise reliable source contradicts more reliable sources, and the choice between them is clear, that's (at most) cause for a footnote, lest the misinformation reappear. This is inappropriate. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You folks clearly have some previous, and it would be helpful to me if you could re-phrase the above. Which is the "otherwise reliable source"? Which are the "more reliable sources"? What is the choice that is "clear". Sorry if I am being dim. Ben Mac Dui 17:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're not being dim, I don't understand the comment either. Nor do I have any "previous" with PMAnderson. What I think it means is that the judgements of writers about the Scottish Expedition such as Huxley, which "contradict" other reliable sources, should be mentioned, if at all, in a footnote rather than in the text. Perhaps he will confirm or correct my understanding? Brianboulton (talk) 18:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right. Now please consider doing it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. In the interests of consensus, and hopefully to move on from this specific concern, I have amended the article's penultimate paragraph. I have reworded to avoid any impression of partiality , and have transferred Huxley's comment entirely to a footnote. I've decided to leave Fiennes out of it, rather than labouring the point and extending the footnote. I hope this meets your concerns, also those of Ben MacDui. Brianboulton (talk) 22:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More than. I'd have kept Fiennes myself, but you can't please everybody. Ben Mac Dui 08:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ben Mac Dui 08:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work. My quibbles are as follows:

1. On her way southward she called at Kingstown,^[1] Funchal (Madeira) and the Cape Verde Isles,

This might be better as: On her way southward she called at Dún Laoghaire, (then known as Kingstown), Funchal in Madeira and the Cape Verde Isles,

On first reading I assumed that the route took her first to Jamaica, and I can't think of a good reason to have Madeira in brackets.

The Dun Laoghaire connection was in the footnote, but I had overlooked possible confusion with Jamaica. So I've reversed the position: Dun Laoghaire in the text, Kingstown in the footnote. I've removd the Madeira brackets. Brianboulton (talk) 09:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. On 17 February the position was 64°18′S, and five days later they passed 70°S,

Odd use of spaces before 'S' and in next sentence too.

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are querying here. Can you enlighten?

In fact, its my browser (Firefox) showing what appears to be a space after the minute sign. Not your problem at all.

3. "which the Union Flag and the saltire were displayed" looks like inconsistent use of capitals.

Saltire should have been capitalised, and now is.Brianboulton (talk) 09:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But you may want to link to Flag of Scotland, thus: [[Flag of Scotland|Saltire]], which will not change the visible text; it will convey the perplexed to where they need to go. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. This has been done. Brianboulton (talk) 23:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4. Its a very odd image of Gough Island, which I don't understand. The description says "View from the top of Gough Island." But the land in the background looks higher than the camera "View to the top of Gough Island"? Anyway it's a bonus to have a snap at all, and I don't expect you to visit and find out, but I don't believe you need to credit the photographer as that already exists on Commons.

The image title "Gough Island top view" isn't mine, and isn't used in the article's text or caption. I have credited the photographer in accordance with his request on Commons, which seems polite. Brianboulton (talk) 09:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of the procedure is that isn't necessary to do so here. I'm on a very slow connection at present and will look at this again later.

Having looked into it I can see nothing obvious in MOS, and the best I can do is a description of the process by a knowledgeable Commons editor who says it should be attributed. Fuhgedaboutit. Ben Mac Dui 19:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5. "It is typically confined to a passing mention or footnote, often with little regard for accuracy—"

If you are alleging inaccuracy you should provide a specific example. Did the expedition reach land?

The statement by Huxley contains two inaccuracies: that the expedition was "trapped in the ice", and that it "never reached land". Scotia was never trapped. During its Weddell Sea voyages it was briefly held on occasions, but avoided altogether being trapped, as the text makes clear. It did reach land, and wintered in a safe harbour at Lawrie Island. It performed a great deal of work on land, including the establishment of Orcadas weather station. It also discovered a new coastline in the Weddell Sea. All this is covered in the text. In view of these facts, I don't think it unreasonable to describe Huxley's remarks as "inaccurate". Brianboulton (talk) 10:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this dash correct?

The dash has gone, as part of a slight rewording of the para. Brianboulton (talk) 10:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is clearly some history alluded to above, of which I am ignorant, but I don't find the paragraph otherwise lacking (assuming the statements expressed are accurate).

I think all the history you need is in the article as cited information. The lack of official recognition accorded to the expedition, Bruce's poor PR skills, the overwhelming impact of Scott and Shackleton, all contributed to a lasting general ignorance of the facts of the expedition. I have altered my text slightly, replacing the "often" in the above quote with "sometimes". Brianboulton (talk) 10:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt that Huxley's tone is somewhat dismissive, but you could interpret her stated remarks to mean that the expedition did not make landfall on the mainland of the Antarctic continent and that her reference to being trapped is glib shorthand rather than wholly inaccurate. It is hard to form a clear opinion without reading the texts.

OK, this point is also being contended by the first reviewer. See the discussion up there - I am trying at the moment to establish exactly where he/she stands. When this is clear, I will make a proposal which I hope will be satisfactory to all. Brianboulton (talk) 19:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I'd be quite happy to support if we can resolve this issue. Ben Mac Dui 19:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see revised penultimate paragraph, also my response to above reviewer. I trust all is well now Brianboulton (talk) 22:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have not yet looked at the references and will revert asap.

I fixed a typo and wonder if there should not be periods at the end of nos 18 & 38. The first date in no. 55 is not consistent with the others, which are linked. Ben Mac Dui 17:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right about the two missing full stops, now added. As to the wrongly formatted first date in [55], this was my faulty use of the cite web template; the first date should be year of publication, not linked. Access dates are automatically linked. Thanks for spotting these small errors. Brianboulton (talk) 18:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am now pleased to Support. Ben Mac Dui 08:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this isn't (really) supported by guidelines/policy, but if I may make a suggestion/observation: the penguin picture seems a bit out of place. 1) It's atypical to have two images as such in the lead section, 2) at higher resolutions (e.g. 1680 x 1050 and 1920 x 1200), the images stack causing Bruce and the saltire to be pushed downwards and (partially) out of their respective sections and 3) the image is nowhere near the prose discussing the "serenade". Can it be relocated? ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 13:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The positioning of the piper image was raised at peer review. I defended its positioning in the lead then, because of the picture's totemic nature in regard to this expedition, but this is not my adamantine view. The image stacking problem you mention is not apparent on my screen (which is a bit wider than most), but I accept it must be an irritation to others. The logical place for the piper is the Second voyage section, where the event occurs. If I place it there, I will have to discard, or move, the Coats Land image already in that section, which is not long enough for two images. I don't want to lose Coats Land, which was an important discovery on the expedition. I could move it to the final section in place of Gough Island, which is less important and was visited after the Antarctic phase of the expedition was over. I will mull over these options for a short while. Brianboulton (talk) 18:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You could have both: all you need do is put the piper on the left side of the page opposite the sentence in which he's mentioned; that should not sandwich even on a wide screen. Alternatively, you could move the ship, now in the lead. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - My preferred choice, at the moment, is to leave things where they are. I certainly don't want to move the ship. I can't get a decent location for the piper in the Second voyage section unless I remove the existing image. If the problem identified by Elcobbola is a general one, I will do this, but I've yet to find that it is (see Ruhrfisch comment, below). Brianboulton (talk) 23:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm not sure that placing the piper in the second voyage is impossible. I've done a sample edit; feel free to revert if it doesn't work for you. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm taking advice on this positioning. Brianboulton (talk) 08:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        After thinking about it, and consulting the image guru (User:Elcobbola), I am inclined now to accept User:Septentrionalis 's sample edit, together with the {{clear}} template as recommended by Ruhrfisch (which drops the next section below the image). If anyone thinks this a seriously bad idea, please let me know. Brianboulton (talk) 15:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I peer reviewed this article, felt it was essentially at FA level then, and find it has improved since. I must admit I did not have a problem with the former paragraph pointing out errors in other sources, but there is no chance of perceived POV as the article is now written. I also am in favor of the piper and penguin staying where they are - it is not a problem on the three different monitors I have looked at this article on. Would the use of {{clear}} help here? Well done article, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support I also peer reviewed this article. It was great then and worthy of a star now. Just a couple of very minor quibbles...

"The major task completed during this time was the building of a stone building..." in the first voyage section. Maybe "...construction of a stone building...", or "...building of a stone shelter...", or anything that eliminates two "building"s in quick succession;
- I don't know how I came to miss such an obvious clunk - thanks for pointing it out (I've amended). Brianboulton (talk) 21:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Several of the original crew left during the Buenos Aires interlude, some through illness and one through a misconduct discharge.[16] Replacements were recruited locally,[16]..." Using two sentences to convey a single theme seems odd, especially when they share the same reference. I think "Several of the original crew left during the Buenos Aires interlude, some through illness and one through a misconduct discharge, and replacements were recruited locally.[16] Scotia left for Laurie Island..." would read better. --FactotEm (talk) 18:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, your wording is clearly better, so thanks again. Brianboulton (talk) 21:54, 3 August 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.

^ Kingstown, a port just south of Dublin, is now called Dún Laoghaire

[1] Kingstown, a port just south of Dublin, is now called Dún Laoghaire

[1]