Wikipedia:Peer review/Scottish National Antarctic Expedition/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scottish National 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, for further feedback on its style, general presentation, and use of images. This is a sister-article to William Speirs Bruce, a recent FA promotion, this time dealing in detail with Bruce's main expedition, which was an important milestone in scientific polar exploration. All comments welcome.

Thanks, Brianboulton (talk) 16:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Factotem[edit]

I've gone through this up to and including the First voyage 1902–03 section, concentrating for now mainly on prose, picking on things that just don't quite gel to fresh eyes. I will continue with the remainder in the same vein over the next couple of days, after which I will go back and, having got to know the article better, see if there are any glaring inconsistencies in things such as flow, sudden leaps in what is being presented, and just generally seeing how it all hangs together for a reader new to the topic. Hope this is helpful.

Lead[edit]
  • Piper Kerr image seems oddly placed, and introduces unnecessary white space on my screen resolution.
    • I put this image there because it became sort of totemic for this expedition. It doesn't seem to affect my screen resolution. It could go back into the Second voyage section - I will reconsider. Brianboulton (talk) 10:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personal preference - I do not like cites in the lead. Is it worthwhile summarising the quote in your own words, and introducing it in the main narrative?
    • This is a kind of summary point, appropriate to the lead. If I put it in my own words I'd still have to cite it. Since it doesn't violate policy, I'd rather leave the quote, and the cite, where they are. Brianboulton (talk) 10:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Background to the expedition[edit]
  • "Bruce built up his knowledge of the natural sciences, and of oceanography, by studying..." Seems like unnecessarily enthusiastic punctuation. Perhaps "Bruce built up his knowledge of the natural sciences and oceanography by studying..."?
    • I shall be taking aboard most of your punctuation recommendations, starting with this one. Brianboulton (talk) 10:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He then worked at a meteorological station at the Ben Nevis summit..." Oddly worded? Perhaps "He then worked at a meteorological station on the summit of Ben Nevis..."? - Done
  • "After returning from the Arctic, in 1899,..." Over-enthusiastic use of the comma? Perhaps "After returning from the Arctic in 1899,..."? - Done
  • "National Antarctic Expedition (Discovery Expedition)" Too many "expedition"'s in quick succession, sounds wrong, and the wikilink is to just "Discovery Expedition" anyway. Wouldn't a simple wikilinked "Discovery Expedition" work?
    • The problem is, it didn't get called the Discovery Expedition until after the event. In 1899, when Bruce applied, it was called the National Antarctic Expedition (Discovery wasn't built until 1901). I'll see if I can find a way of avoiding the repetition without wordy explanation. Brianboulton (talk) 10:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that, whilst technically accurate, sticking to it might be unnecessarily confusing. Is it possible to refer to it as the Discovery Expedition in the main article, and provide the detail about naming accuarcy and chronology in the footnote? --FactotEm (talk) 12:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually what you have done works well. My only comment now would be to restrict the link to Discovery Expedition. There's too much general text in blue right now. --FactotEm (talk) 08:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'This proposal was denounced by the RGS as "mischievous"' Denounced seems quite a strong term - is that what the sources call it? Perhaps 'This proposal was rejected by the RGS as "mischievous"'?
    • The vehemence of Markham's rejection of Bruce's second ship proposal in the cited correspondence justifies the use of "denounced". I have reworded to make it clear that it was Markham doing the denouncing, rather than the RGS. Brianboulton (talk) 11:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...after some heated correspondence with Sir Clements Markham..." Who is Clements Markham, and what's his relevance to the RGS? The link gives the answer, but it might be worth linking the two in this article as well ("...with the RGS president Sir Clements Markham...")?
    • Sorry, I thought I had described Markham as RGS president. He certainly is so described, later on. I'll deal with this. Brianboulton (talk) 10:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, he had also acquired the life-long enmity of Markham." This seems a little disjointed/abrupt to me. Maybe something along the lines of "He had, however, incurred the life-long enmity of Markham as a result"? (though I don't think this is 100% either).
    • I've adjusted to: "However, as a result, he had acquired the lasting enmity of Markham". Brianboulton (talk) 11:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SY Scotia[edit]
  • Was the Hekla actually rebuilt, or refitted?
    • Rudmose Brown says: "The magnitude of these alterations and repairs was such that when the work was finished very little of the old Hekla was left", so I reckon "rebuilt" is appropriate.
  • What does "SY" stand for? Would a better section title be "The Scotia"? You don't appear to use "SY Scotia" anywhere else.
    • It stands for "steam yacht", but you're right, I've not used it elsewhere, and it looks isolated in the heading. I will change this. As to "The Scotia", ship names are not usually referred thus, and in wikipedia are italicised. The form Scotia conforms with all other expedition articles. Brianboulton (talk) 10:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The costs of this refit, amounting to £16,700 (2008 = £1.3 million),[12] were met by the Coats family,[14][15] who altogether provided some £30,000 of the total expedition costs of around £36,000 (2008 = £2.8 million).[11][12]" Too many clauses, parentheses, figures, and references for my liking. Maybe split into two "...met by the Coats family. Altogether they provided..."?
    • You're right - I will sort this out. Brianboulton (talk) 10:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • (Subsequently done)
  • Wikilink sea trials in last sentence? - Done
Scientific staff[edit]
  • "...acquired skiing and sledging skills through living in northern Russia for several years." Reads just a little odd. Do we acquire skills through something? Maybe "...acquired skiing and sledging skills during several years spent living in Russia."? - Done
  • Who is George Murray, and what is his relevance here? Also, rather than "and formerly an assistant to George Murray", maybe "and a former assistant to George Murray".
    • Rather than have to explain him I've removed him.
Ship's company[edit]
  • Rather than just "Scotia", which seems a little abrupt, would it be better to use "the Scotia"?
  • "All of the other 25 officers and men who embarked on the voyage..." makes it sound like a passenger trip? Maybe something along the lines of "The rest of the crew, comprising 25 officers and men, were Scottish..."? (also Scottish?)
  • "...a number of them, however, left the expedition after the first Antarctic voyage, when Scotia returned to Buenos Aires for repairs and re-provisioning in January 1904." seems an odd jump here and is repeated later in the correct chronological context. Maybe remove it? This will probably make the section too short, so merge with previous section and title it "Ship's Compliment" or something?
    • Yes, I've done as you suggest, left two short paragraphs under the general heading "Personnel". Brianboulton (talk) 14:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These included establishing a wintering station "as near to the South Pole as is practicable",[11] deep sea and other research in the Antarctic Ocean, and systematic observations and researches in meteorology, geology, biology, topography and terrestrial physics." Awkward? Maybe "They included the establishment of a winter station "as near to the South Pole as is practicable",[11] deep sea and other research of the Antarctic Ocean, and systematic observation and research of meteorology, geology, biology, topography and terrestrial physics."? -Done, more or less
First voyage 1902–03[edit]
  • Lots of wikilinked dates. I can't find the guideline now, but I have always been under the impression that dates should only be linked if the link is relevant, and not just for the sake of it.
    • The new guideline is fairly recent. I have delinked all dates except start of voyage, farthest south, return date and loss of Scotia. Brianboulton (talk) 10:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 2 - "...forcing the ship to manoeuvre." Makes it sound like they had to jink around a little. Do you mean "alter course" or perhaps "spend longer than anticipated navigating through the ice"?
    • "Manoeuvre", in the nautical sense, is defined as: "any change from the straight, steady course of a ship" (Chambers), so I reckon it's the right word.
  • Para 2 - "Next day, Scotia was able to move southward again, to land a small party..." -> "and land a small party..."? - Done
  • Para 2 - "Ice conditions prevented any further voyaging south until 10 February, after which steady progress was made: "scudding along at seven knots under sail". "Voyaging" sounds awkward, and "progress" sounds more natural, but then it occurs twice in quick succession. The colon also looks wrong. Maybe change to "Ice conditions prevented any further progress until 10 February, after which the Scotia was able to continue southward "scudding along at seven knots under sail""? - Done
  • Para 2 - "Deep into the Weddell Sea"?
    • I think that's OK. You can talk about going "deep into the jungle", or if you are the Ancient Mariner, "We were the first that ever burst/Into that silent sea".
  • Para 2 - Not sure that a "thereafter" will go unnoticed at FAC. Change to "after"? - after this....
  • Para 2 - Although "beset" sounds a little archaic, I would not have commented but for the fact that you use "trapped" in the next para. Maybe change to "trap" in this case as well?
    • "Beset" and "trapped" mean different things. To cut a long story short, in relation to ships and ice "beset" implies held by the ice, usually for a long period, under constant attack from the ice. "Trapped" can be temporary, without immediate dangers, but these an of course develop. I don't know how to clarify this without a chunk of obtrusive explanatory text - perhaps a footnote?
This, and the manoeuvre example above, perhaps qualify as jargon. While they have specific meanings in their specialist contexts, they come across slightly oddly to the lay reader such as myself. Having said that, these are trivial things. If someone else picks up on them then you'll know better whether there's an issue which needs addressing, but for now I have no problem if you leave them as is. --FactotEm (talk) 11:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 2 - "...Robertson turned northward, at 70°25′S." Would "...Robertson turned northward, having got as far as 70°25′S." read better?
    • Sorry, I don't like "got as far as". What about "having reached.."?
Even better. --FactotEm (talk) 11:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 3 - "No land having been discovered..." -> An abrupt intro to the para. Would "Having failed to find land..." be better? Done
  • Para 3 - "...trapping the ship." Strictly speaking, the imminent freezing of the seas would threaten to trap the ship, or would put the ship at risk of being trapped. "...trapping the ship" makes it read like it was actually happening.
  • Para 3 - "...the South Orkneys were more than 2,000 miles (3,200 km) from the Pole..." Second instance of "Pole" in quick succession. Change to "...from there..."?
  • Para 3 - "...were well-situated as a site for a meteorological station..." -> "...were well situated for a meteorological station..." Also, you have mixed spaced (2nd sentence) and unspaced (here) dashes, which is I believe a no-no (no – no? no—no? who knows?) in the arcane world of WP:DASH
    • At some stage I upgraded all the ndashes (with spaces) to mdashes (no spaces), but this was one that got away. Brianboulton (talk) 10:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 4 - "On 25 March, the ship was safely anchored." Should this be "By 25 March the ship was safely anchored." or "On 25 March the ship safely anchored." (Note removal of over-enthusiastic comma usage as well).
  • Para 4 - "...botanical excursions and the collection of biological and geological specimens" You can re-deploy the redundant comma here, after "botanical excursions" - Done
  • Para 4 - "...after Robert Omond, director of the Edinburgh Observatory and a supporter of the expedition." Do you think the "a" before "supporter" can read as if there are two people here, the director and an anonymous supporter? Perhaps remove the "a"?
    • I've replaced "and" with "who was"
  • Para 6 - "As winter turned to spring, the range of activities increased..." More concise to say "As winter turned to spring activities increased..."?
  • Para 6 - "Two further structures were erected on the beach: a wooden hut for magnetic observations, and a cairn, nine feet high, on top of which the Union flag and the Saltire were displayed." 1. Really picky now: use "constructed" instead of "erected"? 2. Given the multiple commas in clause describing the second construction, I think that a semicolon should be used to delimit the two constructions ("...magnetic observations; and a cairn..."). 3. Both Union Flag (note capitalisation as well) and saltire need to be wikilinked.
  • First point agreed. Second point, I think the colon after "beach" is deployed correctly, but I'll look at the commas, third point I agree and will do. Brianboulton (talk) 10:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't explain myself very well. The colon is fine. I was suggesting a semicolon rather than a comma after "observations", to more clearly separate the wooden hut from the cairn. --FactotEm (talk) 11:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 6 - "Scotia remained icebound through September and October; it was 23 November before strong winds broke up the bay ice, and Scotia floated free." Maybe "Scotia remained icebound throughout September and October, and it was not until 23 November that strong winds broke up the bay ice, allowing the Scotia to float free."?- Done
  • Para 6 - "...leaving a party of six, under Robert Mossman, at Omond House." Not sure what any of those commas are doing. - Removed them.

--FactotEm (talk) 02:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Next tranche, up to and including Second voyage, 1904...

Buenos Aires, 1903–04[edit]
  • Para 2 - This is a really small point, but the list of people assisting Bruce in his negotiations is comma separated, which might be construed as listing 4 people. Perhaps the use of semicolons ("...assisted by the British resident minister; the British Consul; and the director of the Argentine Meteorological Office, Dr W G Davis.") would make it absolutely clear that the director and the Doctor are the same person? _ Done
  • Para 2 - "...Bruce confirmed an arrangement whereby three scientific assistants of the Argentine government would travel with Scotia back to Laurie Island and would work for a year, under Robert Mossman, as the first stage of an annual arrangement." This sentence reads slightly awkwardly to me, but I'm not sure exactly why. I wonder if it would be better to write that they would travel "...back to Laurie Island to work for a year...", and whether the first incidence of "arrangement" might better be "agreement"?
  • Para 3 - Seems odd to have such a short 2nd sentence that is both closely related to the 1st and shares the same ref. Maybe combine into one sentence?
    • Agreed and will do - now done.
Second voyage, 1904[edit]
  • You have 2 blank lines below the section header (which in the edit window are below the image code). Is this an attempt to format the section so that the two images can be squeezed in without jutting into the following section? On my screen resolution it still results in the edit link for the following section being shunted left.
    • Yeah, that was it. I've closed the gap - I'm not sure that a left-shunted edit is a problem, is it?
Don't believe so. --FactotEm (talk) 11:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 1 - "The voyage proceeded smoothly until, on 3 March, heavy pack stopped the ship ..." Should that be "...heavy pack ice..."? - Done
  • Para 1 - "A sounding was taken, providing a depth of 1,131 fathoms (6,790 ft/2,068 m), instead of the 2,500 fathoms which had until that time been the usual recorded sea-depth." "Providing" and "instead" does sound right to me here. Maybe "A sounding was taken, revealing the sea-depth to be 1,131 fathoms (6,790 ft/2,068 m), compared to the usual 2,500 fathoms which had until that time been measured."? - Done
    • I take it you mean my wording does not sound right to you. Anyway, your wording is definitely better. Brianboulton (talk) 11:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 1 - "...which shut off progress..." The choice of "shut off" jars a little, when I think most narratives would have chosen the obvious word "blocked" here. - Done
  • Para 1 - "Over the following days, they were able to track the edge of this barrier southwards for some 150 miles (241 km)." More concise just to say "...they tracked the edge..."? - Done
  • Para 1 - "...which indicated the certainty of land behind the barrier." Indicated and certainty don't seem to mix well here. Perhaps you could say "...indicated the strong possibility of land..." or "...strongly indicated the presence of land..."?
    • Slightly reworded here, including the next sentence. Brianboulton (talk) 15:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 1 - "The outlines of this land became only faintly visible, but Bruce felt confident enough of its presence to name it after his chief sponsors—Coats Land." Something is not quite right about the 1st clause. I think its the implied chronology that at one specific time, related to the sounding mentioned in the previous sentence, the outlines became visible. Do you mean that the outlines only ever became faintly visible, which has more sense of continuity over time? Also, the sentence ends with the implication that his chief sponsors were an entity called Coats-Land. Perhaps this would be better written as "...name it Coats Land after his chief sponsors."?
  • Para 1 - "This was the first positive indicator of the eastern limits of the Weddell Sea at high latitude, and showed the sea to be considerably smaller than had been previously supposed." The words "indicator" and "showed" don't seem to sit well together. Did Coats Land definitively show the sea to be smaller at the time, or did it only suggest it was smaller?
    • At that time, one would have to say "suggested". Coats Land might have been an island. I'll make the alteration. (done)Brianboulton (talk) 11:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 2 - "At this point, the ship was held fast in the pack, and the prospect loomed of a winter trapped in the ice." Pack on its own here just doesn't sound right. Maybe "...held fast in the pack ice, and the prospect loomed of being trappped for the winter."?- done
  • Para 2 - "However, on 14 March, they were able to break free, and to move slowly north-eastward." Slightly awkward last clause? How about "However, on 14 March, they were able to break free and move slowly north-eastward." - Done
  • Para 2 - I think the last sentence needs to start "Throughout this part of the voyage...", with a comma after "trawls". Done
  • Para 3 - "Scotia now headed for Cape Town, by a route that enabled a visit to Gough Island, an isolated mid-Atlantic volcanic projection that had never before been visited by a scientific party." The "now" seems odd when describing an historic event, "enabled a visit" seems awkward, and the "before" is redundant. Maybe "Scotia headed for Cape Town by a route that took it to Gough Island, an isolated mid-Atlantic volcanic projection that had never been visited by a scientific party."? -Done
  • Para 3 - "On 21 April, Bruce and five others spent a day ashore, collecting specimens." Is there a need for any of these commas? - Deleted
  • Para 3 - "During the whole expedition, more than 1,100 species of animal life were catalogued..." This sentence seems out of place. When I first read it, I thought you were talking about the 1 day collection of the previous sentence, but it's actually a summary of species collection activity over the entire expedition isn't it. The next sentence then returns to the progress of the voyage. Perhaps this sentence can be worked into the Homecoming and after section?
    • The sentence does begin "During the whole expedition", but I'll look at it with a view to increasing clarity. 11:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Para 3 - "Her final ports of call were St Helena and Ascension Island, and she arrived at the Clyde on 21 July 1904." This sentence is fine as is, but titling the next section "Homecoming..." tends to make the arrival at the Clyde out of place now. Maybe end this section with "Her final ports of call before returning home were St Helena and Ascension Island.", and begin the Homecoming section with "The expedition was warmly received on its return to the Clyde on 21 July 1904..."

--FactotEm (talk) 09:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, rather than finish this part of the review by identifying what are really only a few minor copyedits, I'm just going to go ahead and edit them directly into the article. It goes without saying that you should feel free to revert as you see fit, but there, I've said it anyway. Once this is done I'll take a break, and come back to it later. I want to re-read it with fresher eyes, focussing more on content than prose. --FactotEm (talk) 09:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, a couple of comments that are a little bit more than minor copyedits...

  • Having read the source for the 2003 expedition, the most accurate statement I could glean from it is along the lines of "A 2003 expedition, described as a "fitting testament" to Bruce, retraced his steps, and used information collected by the SNAE as a basis for examining climate change in South Georgia during the past century." The use of the word "pioneering" I guess is a question of interpretation. However, I think that "predicting that its findings would prove dramatic", based on a 5 year old source that reports "Initial results have shown dramatic conclusions..." is only going to elicit a challenge for more up to date conclusions.
  • I think that the last para would be better worded as "The Scotia was requisitioned during the Great War, and saw service as a freighter. On 18 January 1916, she caught fire, and was burned out on a sandbank in the Bristol Channel." The "sad" bit, whilst true, doesn't seem encyclopedic. This change, if accepted, makes the para too short to stand on its own and should probably be tacked onto the preceding para. That will introduce a chronological problem, given the 2003 expedition, which rather spoils the poignancy of the current ending. Not sure how to get round that, though the testimonial nature of that expedition also seems like a fitting end.
    • I'll try to resolve this. You can tell me in due course what you think. Brianboulton (talk) 11:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You produce great work, and reading this has brought back some great memories. Thanks. --FactotEm (talk) 10:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these very helpful comments and suggestions. I have made a few responses; where I have not yet responded, in many cases your suggestions are uncontentious. In a few instances I want a little thinking time before deciding what to do. But I am certain that the article will be significantly improved as a result of your review. Brianboulton (talk) 11:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
    • Your last source in the bibliography is lacking a publisher! For shame! (grins) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 13:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Sorry to have taken so long on this - Factotem and Ealdgyth have done a very thorough job, so my comments will be breif.

  • I think the third paragraph of the lead should be expanded - perhaps include the denial of the medal info here instead, or add the fact that Bruce never led another expedition, or the short lived Scottish Oceanographical Laboratory?
    • I've reorganised information between paras 2 and 3, and added a little. Brianboulton (talk) 14:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like the piper and penguin image and would leave it where it is.
  • I find the use of approx. odd in (2008 equivalent approx. £200,000). - why not spell it out?
    • Done
  • Missing comma? Scotia sailed from Laurie Island on 22 February[,] 1904
    • Commas in this date format don't seem to be required by WP:date, so I've left these. Someone will surely tell me if I've got it wrong. Brianboulton (talk) 14:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made a minor copyedit (spaces before refs removed). Otherwise looks very good to me - hope this helps. Ruhrfisch ><>° ° 23:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Final comments by Factotem Finishing up my review now with a high-level read through just to see if everything hangs together....

Personnel

  • "As Scotia's captain Bruce appointed Thomas Robertson...". This reads to me as "In his position as Scotia's captain, Bruce appointed...", and then jars (appointed Robertson what?). I think that "Bruce appointed Thomas Robertson as Scotia's captain." might be better. This will probably require the sentence to end there and the following clause to be a separate sentence. Also, you have already provided the dates of the Dundee Whaling Expedition, so I'm not sure that they are necessary here.

Second voyage, 1904

  • There is an overlap of the narrative between the end of the previous section ("...arriving [at Laurie island] on 14 February. A week later...Scotia set sail for her second voyage to the Weddell Sea.") and the beginning of this section ("Scotia sailed from Laurie Island on 22 February 1904, heading south-east, towards the eastern waters of the Weddell Sea."). Both say the same thing - is this necessary? Also, strictly speaking there is an inaccuracy - did Scotia depart 21 Feb (a week after her arrival on the 14th), or on the 22nd?
    • I've sorted out the overlap, some rewording, generally better.
  • Re-iterating a point made earlier, the sentence "During the whole Scotia expedition more than 1,100 species of animal life were catalogued, 212 of them previously unknown to science." is a concluding statement that refers to the whole expedition, dropped between two sentences that deal with specific points of progress in the second voyage. It just seems completely out of place here.
    • I've moved the setence, or an adapted version of it, into Homecoming and after, and it looks better there. Brianboulton (talk) 17:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great article, very readable, and engaging. --FactotEm (talk) 10:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your unstinting efforts to iprove the article. Brianboulton (talk) 17:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Scottish_National_Antarctic_Expedition/archive1&oldid=1079323219"