Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expedition

Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expedition

Featured article candidates/Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expedition

This article has had two peer reviews. As a result of the first, in January 2007, it has been entirely reconstructed. Comments from the recent review have also been absorbed, and I believe the article is now in a completed state. It is ready for FAC. Self-nominator: Brianboulton (talk) 11:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

You don't seem to use the Whilhelm Filchner website in the article, if not it should either go to external links or be eliminated from the Sources.
- There are three citations to the Filchner article, which is part of the Southpole.com website. Reference no 4a, b, c. Brianboulton (talk) 16:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice to source the information currently footnoted to the Otto Nordenskold website to something else. The website gives its sources, but it's probably a marginal source.
- I have added a direct citation to Shackleton's South for foonote (53), and have strenthened (52) by adding a Fisher refce to the Otto article citation. Brianboulton (talk) 16:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All the links check out with the link checker tool. Sources look good. I'll try to get back for a fuller review later. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See comments about Otto for Filchner (grins). I promise to review later... I've spent the whole morning dealing with FAC stuff! I've got to work on my own articles! (whimpers) Ealdgyth - Talk 16:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Filchner article is a respectable source. Although it doesn't have in-text citations its bibliography includes Filchner's own book, (and a couple of other decent books). I don't think the Filchner references wuld have any more authority if I cited them elsewhere, though this could be done. PS> I hope I've interpreted your wishes correctly, though I'm not sure I have. Brianboulton (talk) 20:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You did interpret correctly. Nothing that site is referencing is vital, and the site does give references, so that's all to the good. And it's not being used to reference opinions or stuff like that. So it's an acceptable source, but ... you know me, I'm picky on sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment - you need to close the Peer Review, which is still open. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Stick to either American or British spelling. You have both harbour and organizational in there.
Footnotes generally are located after a punctuation mark, not before.

Wow, that wasn't much. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 16:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll alter these when I can find them - it's a long article. Brianboulton (talk)

OK, I've corrected "organisational" (in fact, the "z" is perfectly acceptable in English spelling, but anything to oblige). I also attended to a couple of footnote violations. If you notice others, could you please give me the ref. number? They're awfully hard to spot. Brianboulton (talk) 17:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you found them all. Another thing, though, in temperatures, there should be a nonbreaking space between the number and the units. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 00:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed this. Brianboulton (talk) 09:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More comments on things other than MOS:

What makes [1] a reliable source?
Same with [2].
Same with [3].

Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 01:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first and third are only in the external links. The second is used only to back up the Otto Nordenskiöld info from Huntsford and for a couple of lines on Filchner for which I've added a book source. Yomangani ^talk 01:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support—This is just first-class. Congratulations to the authors; this is work that WP can be proud of. Why aren't more nominations like this? I've made a few minor edits at the top. The OED, amazingly, still hasn't reversed it's "iz" "is" spelling options to reflect widespread practice in Br and other varieties: z is still given as first option. But we can safely ignore it, and many people would be happy with the maximised s. If you've changed "organisational" to s, there are still some stray zeds. I haven't looked at the referencing as has Nouser above. TONY (talk)

I've switched the one change to "is" back. Since both are acceptable in BrEng and I can see that the heading "Return to civilisation" would be constantly "corrected", I think adopting the "iz" spelling will mean a lower incidence of such "corrections" (since we will be drawing from the pool of Brits who don't know the spelling is allowed). Yomangani ^talk 13:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For a compromise, couldn't we at least chance "harbour" to "harbor" then? It just makes me uneasy for both the s-spelling and "harbour" to be in the same article; as you mentioned, there would be no end of "corrections." Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 15:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"-iz-" is acceptable spelling in BrEng (we allow both "-is-" and "-iz-"), "harbor" is not. If you are suggesting that the use of "-iz-" spelling would encourage Americans to change "harbour" to "harbor", you may be right, but I think it would be less than the number of alterations made if the title was "Return to civilisation". The titles seem to attract this sort of helpful edit. In animal articles we often see the section title "Behaviour" changed to "Behavior" while the same word in the following sentences is untouched. Of course, it happens the other way round as well ("Behavior" to "Behaviour") but less frequently - probably because there are less Brits. If you are suggesting a shift to AmEng for this article I think you'll be hard pushed to make a case (Bakewell was an American, but even he he pretended to be Canadian to get on board). Yomangani ^talk 16:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further to above: I am a Brit, the main though not the only editor of this article. As a Brit writing about a British expedition I naturally use British spelling, and give priority to imperial measurements in conversions. The z-form is perfectly acceptable in British English, though I usually use s. The reason for "z" appearing is most likely because I paste parts of the article from Microsoft Word, which "corrects" my "s" spellings. I believe that there should be consistency in the article, either all "z"'s or all "s"'s, so I'll go through again. Brianboulton (talk) 17:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support With just a few questions, concerns, quibbles. For full disclosure, I peer reviewed this article and did some copyediting on it (mainly typos).

Origins section, first sentence: is the had before "lived restlessly" required grammatically?

In this context it is probably grammatical either with or without "had" (a grammarian would have to arbitrate), but it is more elegant without, so it's gone.

Brianboulton (talk) 18:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise everything looks good. Happy to support. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]