Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ross Sea party

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 01:54, 13 February 2008.

Ross Sea party

Nominator Brianboulton (talk) 19:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check external links

I'm nominating this article for featured article because, after amendments following a generally favourable peer review and further changes in response to the review of house style issues, I feel it now meets the FA criteria Brianboulton (talk) 18:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support a very through and well-researched article. My few small niggles were all addressed at Peer Review. Brianboulton has been doing some excellent work on Antarctic exploration and I look forward to seeing more of his work. Yomangani ^talk 18:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment seemingly on the grounds that he was " prepared to "do anything". - problem with the quotation marks. Epbr123 (talk) 20:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected - sorry Brianboulton (talk) 21:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You need to use {{cite web}} templates on a few references. Seegoon (talk) 20:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have done this. The three cited websites give general information in support of the article, rather than validation of specific points, and I have changed the in-text references to reflect this. Brianboulton (talk) 22:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement at WP:WIAFA to use cite templates; there is a requirement for consistent formatting of citations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I didn't realise. I'll stop throwing that propaganda around. Surely, though, it should be encouraged as the most comprehensive, consistent and informative method of doing so? Seegoon (talk) 01:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—Overall it seemed pretty good. I'd say it's close to FA-worthy. Only a few small issues caught my eye:
- There are a pair of what seem to be excessively long sentences that can readily be split into two smaller sentences:
  - Believing that Shackleton might attempt a crossing during the first season, Mackintosh decided that depots had to be laid without delay, the first in the vicinity of Minna Bluff, a prominent Barrier landmark at 78°30′S, 169°00′E, and another at 80°S, these being, in his view, the minimum that would enable Shackleton to survive.
  - Fortunately, the sledging rations intended for Shackleton's depots had been landed, but because Mackintosh had intended to use Aurora as the party's main headquarters, with only the scientific staff resident in the Cape Evans hut, most of the shore party's personal gear, food, equipment and fuel was still aboard, leaving the ten men stranded ashore with "only the clothes on their backs".

I've dealt with both of the above by dividing them, & also with another long sentence at the start of the "Drift" section Brianboulton (talk) 01:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- This sentence could perhaps be revisited:
  - When Mackintosh and the nucleus of the party arrived in Sydney, Australia late in October 1914 to prepare their expedition, they were faced with an unexpectedly chaotic lack of preparedness.
Wouldn't it stand to reason that, if they were there for the purpose of preparation, then initially the said preparation would be lacking? So what is it saying?

The chaos they found was due to Shackleton's neglect of groundwork. The sentence has been amended to read: "....faced with an unexpectedly chaotic set of circumstances, bequeathed by Shackleton". This is what I meant to indicate, but I agree that the earlier version was inadequate Brianboulton (talk) 01:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.—RJH (talk) 23:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help Brianboulton (talk) 01:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support It looks good, although there could be better wikilinking. Juliancolton Talk 22:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've added about a dozen new links. Also a couple of redlinks, for Hayward and Lionel Hooke. Both deserve articles, & perhaps someone will write one? Brianboulton (talk) 23:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Well written, well researched, informative. Citing is bullet proof. Excellent work! Strong, strong support for this great article. Congratulations to the editors. Lazulilasher (talk) 16:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Epbr123 (talk) 16:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment color-coding the first image text would be nice. gren グレン 21:01, 12 February 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.