Talk:Ernest Shackleton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Ernest Shackleton is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] University of Birmingham

One of the largest halls of residence at the university is named in his honour, worth mentioning?

this website was really good and i got heaps

[edit] Historical images

The historical images are rather dark. If only for the sake of clarity I think they should be brightened up a bit lot. Lee M 01:54, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Not only are they dark, the image at the bottom is not of Shackleton at all, but rather depicts the last expedition of Robert Falcon Scott. The image was taken January 18, 1912 and is of Oates, Scott and Evans (standing); and Bowers and Wilson (sitting). --Gabbe 18:22, Jan 16, 2004 (UTC)

Has the picture issue been resolved? Lisiate 21:16, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

It looks like it has been - the offending picture has been removed. Mark Richards 22:05, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Does anybody agree with me that the most recent edit about Lennard Bickel's book is superfluous and possibly not appropriate ? No Guru 19:34, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Shackleton, though a C.V.O. and O.B.E. (neither of which entitled him to an honorific), was inducted as a Knight Bachelor in 1909. Thus, "Kt., C.V.O., O.B.E." is appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.173.26.64 (talk) 16:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it doesn't work. Certainly the topic would fit here, but not in the form of a book review cut-&-paste. Joyous 02:45, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)
Since no one has objected to the idea in lo, these many months, I've removed the offending paragraph. Joyous 00:54, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Miles

I fixed the error in the distance where the article said

"reached 88°23'S: a point only 156 km (98 miles) from the South Pole"

correcting that distance to 180 km.

I'm sure many of the readers of this article could go out and find hundreds of sources on the internet, and in printed books, to support the figure that was there (though most of them will say 97 "miles" rather than 98).

All I can say is that people who don't know what "miles" are in this context should not be using them. Since they are the root of the problem, I omitted them completely from this particular measurement.

Hint: look at that latitude. Subtract it from 90°0'. Convert the degrees and minutes to minutes of arc. Does that number look vaguely familiar? Now, what does that mean with regard to these miles? Gene Nygaard 02:06, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

To explain what Gene is talking about slightly less sarcastically, there are two kind of miles. Statute miles are 5,280 feet and are the miles used to measure distances legally in the UK and US - for example, on freeways and motorways. A nautical mile, derived from the similar geographical mile, is equal to one minute of latitude (technically, one minute of arc along a meridian), which is a hair over 6,076 feet or exactly 1,852 meters. And given that there are 60 minutes in a degree, Shackleton's furthest south latitude of 88º23' left him 98 minutes of arc, or 98 nautical miles from the South Pole. 98 nm times 1.852 km equals 181.496 km from the Pole. Given that the mode of navigation available to Shackleton was not accurate to this many significant digits, 180 km is a very solid, approximate figure for the distance to the Pole. 156 km - the erroneous figure - was obviously derived from using statute miles conversion. Mariners such as Shackleton always use nm and express speed in knots - nautical miles per hour. I have updated the measurement with nautical miles and km. Kgdickey 22:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, roughly that. Some quibbles
  1. 90°0' − 88°23' = 1°37' = 97 minutes of arc, not 98
  2. The nautical miles Shackleton used were 6080 ft (over 1853 m), not 1852 m
  3. In either case, the correspondence between minutes of arc and nautical miles is never quite exact.
  4. The distance from 88°23' to the pole on a reference ellipsoid, evaluating the appropriate elliptic functions, is 180.0 km to the nearest tenth of a kilometer (whereas 97 of Shackleton's nautical miles is 179.8 km and 97 international nautical miles is 179.6 km). Near the poles, a minute of arc is a bit longer than a nautical mile. But the latitude was never measured to a precision of more than the nearest minute of arc, so even with an absolutely accurate measurement it would be plus or minus half a minute of arc, or roughly 1 km.
  5. It doesn't have a whole lot to do with being "mariners". Those nautical miles are conventional in polar explorations precisely because of that correspondence for figuring the distance from the pole between those miles and the minutes of arc from the pole. Gene Nygaard (talk) 17:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intro

Previous edit has mangled the introduction so I've reverted and am placing the content here for others to review
([[Februaryhas become one of the world's most famous advertisements in the Times of London in December 1901: "Men wanted for hazardous journey. Small wages. Bitter cold. Long months of complete darkness. Constant danger. Safe return doubtful. Honour and recognition in case of success." (Some historians have claimed that this ad was placed, although they do not all agree on when or which newspaper, but no one has yet been able to locate the original newspaper clipping; see [1] for a full discussion.)
No Guru 18:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Sadly I've edited the above to make it clear that it's a delightful story but a myth. Nobody's been able to track down the original advert and it appears highly likely that it was thought up in the post -war period by the editor of a book collection of "the world's greatest advertisements". Given that the Times was published daily, this means no more than 30 copies to look through in a newspaper archive, and with the popular appeal of this myth and Shackleton himself, I am afraid I'd have to say if it's not been found by now I'm inclined to believe it doesn't exist in the Times of Dec. 1901 :-( --mgaved 12:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discrepancy in information

In the article about Ernest Shackleton, it is mentioned that his party reached a "furthest south" point 180 miles from the magnetic South Pole. However, in another Wikipedia article on the subject of Antarctic explorers, it is mentioned that Shackleton and his party were the first humans to reach magnetic south. There is no mention at all in the Shackleton article that he ever reached magnetic south.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.45.18.28 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 27 June 2006

Presumably this editor is talking about List of Antarctica expeditions, which says that Shakleton reached the magnetic South Pole. I agree that the discrepancy should be addressed.--HughGRex 22:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Shackleton's party did reach the magnetic south pole as part of the Nimrod Expedition, however he was unable to ever reach the true geographic South Pole. The article is fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazulilasher (talk • contribs) 06:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Then on his last jurny he was attacked by spongeopilis and patricneil and died on 1934 november 12th.

[edit] Wow...Shackleton's not GA..

I'm surprised this article isn't up to GA yet (as Ernest Shackleton is amazing...) Anyway, I'm going to first try to improve the article by adding footnotes and expanding before submitting it for review. Please join in if you have any info!!!! Lazulilasher (talk) 23:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, Sir Shackleton was a featured article on the German and Slovenian Wiki's...so if anyone knows those languages sufficient enough to provide a translation, that would be AWESOME...:) Thanks! Lazulilasher (talk) 02:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I fleshed out this article a bit with some additional material as well as added info written about the Endurance Expedition from that page (as this is most def the paramount even in Shackleton's life). I also added all refs. I'm going to bed now and will try and finish this tommorow. Lazulilasher (talk) 06:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
If you are looking for a "good article", there are a number of ways in which the quality of this article has deteriorated since you started editing. Somebody needs to do some serious copyediting, including header capitalization, "born" in intro dates, date links for preferences, and a whole lot more. Start by reading the #Miles section above, too. Other problems existed before your editing; names of ships should be italicized, for example. I might get at some of this later today. Gene Nygaard (talk) 16:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey Gene, please do assist in any way that you can. As I came to the article, there were no references and now I've sourced the entire article, which I feel is important in an encyclopedia, I also tried to pull the article into accordance with the MOS. I'm not sure what you mean by '"born" in intro dates'YesY and "date links for preferences"YesY, could you please advise so that I can pull them into line? That's a shame that you think my edits have deteriorated the article's quality. I spent a lot of time searching for sources to cite and then tried to make the article more readable. However, I'd relish the opportunity to have someone (maybe you...hint) take a serious look at it for copy-editing, and perhaps I've re-read the article too many times. So, please help if you have the opportunity! Lazulilasher (talk) 17:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Ahh...found out what date links for preferences are...ok, I'm formatting them now to fall in line w/ MOS Dates]. Lazulilasher (talk) 18:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Date pref auto-formatting done YesY Lazulilasher (talk) 18:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Formatted footnotes w/ citebook and citeweb YesY Lazulilasher (talk) 20:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Safe Return Doubtful

Most claims about the apparently mythical advertisement refer to the Endurance or the Nimrod expedition. Our mention here is in the section on Robert Scott's Discovery trip. Should that be moved elsewhere? Joyous! | Talk 21:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...Well, I looked into it further and it seems that since the ad is decidedly apocryphal there isn't much consensus about which voyage it preceded. The citation I added was from this website, which upon further reading presents both possibilities. Harpers in 1976 attributed the ad to 1900 (which is before the Scott expedition and upon reflection I am forced to agree with you--it somehow seems rather unlikely), however both here and here it is attributed to the Endurance.....given that it looks like the ad was never placed, maybe it should be removed or placed in another section? What do you think? Lazulilasher (talk) 00:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
(I'm amused to find myself discussing which voyage the ad wasn't placed for.) The ad is one of the things that seems to be linked with Shackleton's name, so I think it should certainly be mentioned somewhere. To my mind, it doesn't seem to make as much sense that it might have been placed for the Scott expedition because Shackleton wasn't in command of that one, so I don't think staffing would have been left up to him (treading dangerously close to Original Research here, yes?). I notice the ad has its own section in the main Imperial_Trans-Antarctic_Expedition article, which is where I've always heard about it. Joyous! | Talk 01:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Hehe...what's really interesting about this is the number of seemingly reputable publications this "advertisement" is cited in--I've now found it in a psychology book, a leadership book, and a book about human behavior (and of course, that Harper's quote). Interesting. Anyway, I feel you're correct because all of the sources which focus on Shackleton seem to indicate that the 'ad' was allegedly placed before Nimrod or Endurance. Maybe as you seem to suggest, it should have its own section? It seems rather inextricably linked to Shackleton and well-known in popular culture. Lazulilasher (talk) 02:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I believe I would either place it as a small mention in the Endurance section, or on its own. I don't really have a preference for one of those over the other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joyous! (talk • contribs) 02:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nimrod expedition

In this section, I moved the sentence To conserve coal, the ship was towed 2,700 km (1,678 miles) by the Konya to the Antarctic ice from the first to the second paragraph. However, I'm not sure if the sentence that used to follow it Shackleton arranged for the expense to be split by the New Zealand government and the Union Steamship Company should come with it. Is "the expense" the cost of the towing, or of some other aspect of the journey. I don't have either reference handy to check. Joyous! | Talk 21:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It was the towing and the use of the Konya. Lazulilasher (talk) 00:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll move that sentence, too. Joyous! | Talk 00:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Interim between Nimrod and Endurance expeditions

This seems an unnecessary section as it reads now. The first paragraph could easily go at the end of the Nimrod section, and the second paragraph could (with some adjustments) be the lead for the Endurance Expedition section. Anyone disagree with that adjustment? Joyous! | Talk 22:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, thanks for pointing it out. I felt that the section b/w the Discovery & the Nimrod was necessary and then felt obliged to have a similar section b/w the Nimrod & Endurance...however, now that you point it out I think it should be merged into the two preceding sections. I'll do it once I answer your other message below :) Lazulilasher (talk) 00:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
the sections are now merged....Lazulilasher (talk) 01:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wow, those Endurance boys could move quick!

There's a pretty significant chunk of time missing in the Endurance expedition section. As it reads now, the Endurance sank, then only 7 days passed until the crew landed on Elephant Island. Did that section get dropped during some previous editing? Joyous! | Talk 22:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Ya, I felt like the Endurance section needed to be beefed up from what was presently there (about a paragraph) so I added some info from that article and found some more references regarding the voyage. Then I felt like the section was too long so I chopped a bit out--apparently I also cut a required sentence. Will fix it in a moment. Again, thanks for looking it over. Lazulilasher (talk) 00:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
YesY ok, done, hopefully it's easier to read now...Lazulilasher (talk) 01:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyedit

This article, or a prior version of it, was copyedited by the League of Copyeditors on 22:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC). The League is always in need of editors with a good grasp of English to review articles. Visit the Project page if you are interested in helping.

Copyedited by Finetooth (talk) – 04:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Proofread by Galena11 (talk) – 22:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Expedition

I found "Expedition" with a big E in some places and "expedition" with a little "e" in other places in the names of the ship expeditions in this article. I instinctively preferred the little "e" variant and changed a few instances in the article. However, I have doubts about this. It appears that the big "E" might be the accepted convention. Does every expedition by every ship deserve a big "E"? Any thoughts? Finetooth (talk) 05:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep, you're right. I looked in the MOS and it tends to support the little "e", no doubt. I'm changing it now. Wow! That's a great catch by the way, good work!! Lazulilasher (talk) 18:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
It's now only a big "E" if it's the name of a title (i.e. The Discovery Expedition). Do you think that's correct? Lazulilasher (talk) 18:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Oops! I just answered your note on my talk page, and I agreed that the expeditions should be big E most of the time. Now, reading your note here, I've fallen into a state of uncertainty again. Sigh. I see that the voyages of Columbus are generally lower-cased in many articles, yet the expeditions of British naval ships are generally capitalized. Sorry to be so wishy-washy. I'll look further to see if I can find something definitive. Finetooth (talk) 19:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
The closest thing to an answer that I can find in the MOS is in WP:MOSCAPS and has to do with formal military terms: "Accepted full names of wars, battles, revolts, revolutions, rebellions, mutinies, skirmishes, risings, campaigns, fronts, raids, actions, operations and so forth are capitalized (Spanish Civil War, Battle of Leipzig, Boxer Rebellion, Action of July 8, 1716, Western Front, Operation Sealion)." In many cases, polar expeditions were carried out by national navies as quasi-military activities, and it may be that Franklin Expedition, for example, falls into the same class of things as Operation Sealion. I don't think this same logic would quite as easily apply to Amundsen's voyages on Fram or Gjoa, but maybe in this article we can duck that question. I've reverted most of my little "e" changes on the basis of this quasi-military logic. Finetooth (talk) 21:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Haha, I actually went back and forth on the issue as well. I wasn't completely sure. My instinct is that if the word is part of a title then it should be capitalized. However, if Columbus' voyage (or Voyage) isn't capitalized then I don't think Shackleton's should be either. Grah. You sound like you know much more about this sort of thing than I, thus I am going to revert to your knowledge ;) Whatever you decide is more than fine by me. Lazulilasher (talk) 22:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Endurance or "the Endurance"?

Here's another thing to decide. When I was copyediting Vasa (ship) a couple of weeks ago, one of the FAC reviewers pointed out that sometimes Vasa was used in the article and sometimes "the Vasa" to refer to the ship. The MOS says either is OK but not a mixture of the two. This article has a mixture at the moment. I prefer the ship's name in italics without "the" in front of it, Aurora, for example, but we could use "the Aurora". Any preference? Finetooth (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm....another good catch. I prefer the name without the preceding "the"--in my opinion the less words the better. Italics are sanctioned by MOS, so we can keep those. If I get time I'll try and fix it. Lazulilasher (talk) 22:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disappearing section

I ran into a major problem a half hour ago. The whole James Caird section had been rendered invisible because of a missing reference frontslash. I've restored that section, but two of the lettered footnotes in that section don't seem clickable. I'm unfamiliar with the double system of notation used in this article. I'll try to sort out how this is supposed to work and perhaps make some recommendations. Finetooth (talk) 23:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about it--I'm working on it now. I brought it onto all of us by using the system, so I'll fix it. I couldn't find any other way to include footnotes/notes w/o confusing the sections (i.e. I think it is more clear to have 2 distinct sections). Lazulilasher (talk) 23:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I am puzzled--it seems that the backlinks work but not the forward (in article) links? Bizarre. Maybe the internal linking only works with one reference system? Anyway, I have to go out but I'll take a look at it as well if you don't fix it.Lazulilasher (talk) 23:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I had to run off and do some real-life things, but I'm back. Yes, you are right. The backlinks work and not the forward links. I have not run into this particular pattern before. I'm guessing it's caused by some simple code snarl that's hard to see. By the way, in case you're wondering why I'm replacing the metric-imperial pairs with conversion templates, it's mainly because all of the quantities and units must either be held together with no-break-space codes, or they must be held together with templates. The idea is to prevent line-wrap that separates the quantities from the units on various screen displays; e.g., "30" on one line hopping down to "miles" on the next line. Finetooth (talk) 00:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notes and references

I think what might work better for this article than the complex double system of notation is to combine notes and references in the same section. The A, B, C notes could be incorporated into the combined notes, references section by using <ref></ref> tags instead of the templates now being used. The new notes, references section could be simplified somewhat by using short references to the works listed in the bibliography. Instead of reference 1 giving all the details about the Johnson book, it could simply say "Johnson." All the details are given already in the bibliography. The shortened notes might also give the page or pages referred to if they vary from note to note; i.e. Johnson, p. 10 or Johnson, pp. 1-5. If you'd like me to have a whack at making these changes, just let me know. I'm willing to help, but I don't want to be too pushy. Finetooth (talk) 04:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...that sounds fine. What effect do the no wiki tags have? And don't worry about being to pushy....we're supposed to be bold, right :) I was reading some of the GAN fails and noticed that remarks had been made about having the notes/references combined, so I was a bit worried about it. Anyway, I like your idea of combining them with the shortened footnote. Thanks so much for your help, it's so much more fun when there's someone else to collaborate. Lazulilasher (talk) 18:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The nowiki tags prevent the Wikipedia software from interpreting any codes inside the tags. If you want to see what happens without the nowiki codes, try removing them and looking at the results in preview mode. The nowiki trick is really handy in discussions of codes. You might be right in anticipating some grumbling about notes/references combined; however, I think these grumbles are statements of personal preference rather than statements about MOS guidelines. If we meet with fierce resistance, we can always make further adjustments. And, yes, I like collaboration too; it's one of the things that has drawn me to Wikipedia. Finetooth (talk) 18:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I've added an LoCE in-use tag to try to head off edit conflicts while I move stuff around. I see a way to keep the Notes and References separate. The Bibliography becomes the new Reference section, which the Notes can then refer to in shorthand. This seems more logical than having the Notes referring to something later in the article that the reader has not yet seen. Finetooth (talk) 19:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I can't wait to see the final product. Lazulilasher (talk) 20:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

<undent>It's done, all shiny and new. It's not the only way the notes could be done, but I think this layout solves a lot more problems than it creates. I worked to keep the information as true to the original as I could. I thought it would not be acceptable to the reviewers to see footnotes within footnotes, and even though we hadn't discussed this question, I replaced the footnotes to footnotes with phrases like "according to blah in his book blah blah, and other devices of that sort. I was troubled on my first read by the last section, the one on the advertisement controversy. Even the title suggested that this section was rumour rather than fact. I wanted to retain as much as possible of the original without including any rumour or speculation even though attributed to a single web site. If these changes seem wrongheaded, we can discuss. I'm too bleary-eyed to continue this evening, but I will take another look tomorrow to see if I can find anything else that needs spiffing. I'll sign off on the official LoCE copyediting tag so that a proofreader can come in behind me and have another look, but I'll come back too. Please let me know what you think of the new arrangement. Finetooth (talk) 04:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Ordinarily, I'm not in favor of adding rumors, but the claim about the ad has attached itself to Shackleton like George Washington and the cherry tree. In fact, an account of the Heroic Age of Antarctic exploration is titled "Safe Return Doubtful." I think there really needs to be a mention of it somewhere, just to dispel it. Joyous! | Talk 03:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I think it's worth mentioning. It currently states that the advertisement is "widely attributed to Shackleton, it has been suggested that it was created by someone else" I think the article should make note that the ad may not have, in fact, existed at all. There really is quite a bit of literature written about it. What do you all think? Lazulilasher (talk) 04:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Seems good to me to mention the doubt about its not actually having run in The Times. I added a phrase to that effect, and it's reasonably supported by the existing citation. A reference to Huntford's doubts would be even stronger, methinks, and citing both sources would be fine. I'll see if I can find the paragraphs in Huntford and cite them, but if any of you already know where to look, please cite Huntford on this topic. Finetooth (talk) 16:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
A new day. I'm finding a few things I missed yesterday. If we can achieve clarity, accuracy, and consistency, GA will hove into view, methinks. Whether Notes should come before References or whether References should be Bibliography, as you had it before, are not of large importance, in my opinion. Those things and other things could be changed without affecting clarity, accuracy, and consistency. These are my morning thoughts. Finetooth (talk) 17:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I think you did a great job with rearranging the refs and all of the other copy-edit work you did. I tweaked one of the ref tags but beyone that, everything is well done and commendable. What sort of clarity issues do you think we can improve upon? Really, I just want to say again that this looks great. Lazulilasher (talk) 19:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
It always surprises me that I can find 50 things to change the day after I think I'm almost done. I nibbled away this morning, tweaking here and there, as you can see. The only largish unfixed thing that I can see at the moment is the Shackleton quote in the Childhood section that begins without an ellipsis or a capital letter. I don't know if the original quote is grammatical or not. If it is, perhaps you could add some words to make the quote into complete sentences. Finetooth (talk) 20:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
YesY My transcription of the original source quote was incorrect. There is an "I" there. See here if interested. The article reads well, I'm coming to like the combined refs/notes. Lazulilasher (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, btw, MOS advises that the order of the appendices is variable--so I think it is fine to leave Bibliography, References, external links as is, unless you feel otherwise. Lazulilasher (talk) 20:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
OK. Let's leave them, and if a reviewer feels strongly about a different order, it will be no big deal to move them. Finetooth (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Block quotes

Thanks for adding the "I." After this reminder that the Huntford book was on-line, I added a few more words to the quote to make it a bit more interesting. This also had the effect of making it longer, which is good since the MOS recommends using block quotes for "a long quote (more than four lines, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of number of lines)..." With this in mind, I had moved a couple of short block quotes yesterday or the day before into the main text, but this quote is now almost long enough. I think it looks OK. On an entirely different subject, I noticed that User:Rigadoun added +simple to line 209 of the article. I'm guessing that this does some internal wiki thing, but I don't know what. Can you enlighten me? Oh, it must be an interwiki link, yes? Finetooth (talk) 01:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, it's the simple English Wikilink. Also, I was wondering if you could take a look at this diff. It was removed by an ip editor awhile ago and I thought that it damaged the flow of the text, but did not want to just revert without asking someone. What do you think about it? Lazulilasher (talk) 02:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
oops, it was just put into another paragraph. No worries. Lazulilasher (talk) 02:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Times Rumour

Well, I decided to start a new section subheading to continue the advertisement rumour discussion as I can never find it on the talk page :) Anyway, I am trying to search through the Huntford book as well to find a cite. I'll also see if I can find a source in other printed material. Lazulilasher (talk) 17:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you moved the discussion down. I was having trouble finding it too. I've got the page in Huntford or at least one of them. It's page 365. I used the search string "safe return doubtful," in the "search this book" box, and up it popped. I think there's enough there to cite if you want to. Huntford is certainly doubtful about the ad's veracity and argues that Shackleton, already famous, didn't need to place any such ad and had already announced the trip plans in other ways. Finetooth (talk) 17:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I just now found it and was about to proudly write here of my success....only to find that you had found it three minutes quicker. Ha. You're correct, Huntford makes it clear that he highly doubts the validity of the rumour, going so far as to add, "Shackleton...had no need to advertise." Furthermore, I found two google book cites which notes that the ad is "possible possibly apocryphal", so I feel safe in adding a reference to this article. Lazulilasher
Great! Finetooth (talk) 18:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article Review

This is well done and nearly to good article status, however there are a few issues that need to be addressed first, so I am putitng it on hold. You have seven days to fix these (and they should all be pretty easy / quick fixes). I will check back in two days to see how it is going and am glad to try and answer any questions you have - ask here or on my talk page. Nice work so far!

Manual of style issues:

  • There should be a non-breaking space &nbsp; between numbers and their units. I have fixed two as an example. YesY It's amazing how many I missed on the first go-round, all the pp. x in the citations, for example. Finetooth (talk) 20:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank goodness you did this, Finetooth. For some reasons the nbsp thing blows my mind... Lazulilasher (talk) 20:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I double checked with the PR script - they are all gone Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I would make sure metric and imperial units correspond - for example, in Reference 24, currently meters are compared to miles ("800 metres (0.5 mi)"). I would either compare meters to feet or use kilometers (0.8 kilometres (0.5 mi)). YesY I think you found the only one. Finetooth (talk) 20:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Lucky me ;-) Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • For the "See also" section, quoting Wikipedia:See_also#See_also "a good rule of thumb is that it should not repeat links already present in the article." So many of the links currently in the See also section should not be included (but you could add Mrs. Chippy ;-) ). YesY See Also section has been removed and Mrs. Chippy is now referenced in their article with "her" appropriate WikiLink :) Lazulilasher (talk) 20:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
If there were a List of Endurance Crew or something similar, it could be listed in a See also section. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I also think that the Headers should not repeat the article title if possible, so Quest Expedition and Shackleton's death (1921–22) might be better as Quest Expedition and death (1921–22). See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Section_headings (Avoid restating or directly referring to the topic ). YesY
  • Please make the spelling of English words consistent with British spelling, since the subject of the article was British. Examples include: honor (A) (British: honour), metre (B) (American: meter), organise (B) (American: organize), recognize (A) (British: recognise), realise (B) (American: realize), ization (A) (British: isation), traveled (A) (British: travelled). (This suggestion is adapted from the semi-automated peer review script) YesY This was more difficult than I had imagined. I'm pretty certain it's in-line with British requirements now. Lazulilasher (talk) 18:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
The only thing I found left in was "honorific", not sure if that should be "honourific" or not. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

General issues:

  • The first two sentences in 'Childhood seem awkward. Instead of "Shackleton was of English-Irish ancestry and born in Kilkea, County Kildare, Ireland on February 15, 1874, about 48 kilometres (30 mi) from Dublin. Ernest was second of ten children and first of two sons in a family led by father Henry and mother Henrietta Sophia Gaven" How about something like "Shackleton was born on February 15, 1874, in Kilkea, County Kildare, Ireland, about 48 kilometres (30 mi) from Dublin. Ernest's father Henry and mother Henrietta Sophia Gaven were of of English-Irish ancestry - he was the second of their ten children, and first of two sons." instead? YesY You're right--suggestions have been implemented Lazulilasher (talk) 20:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Same secton, "Four years later, the family moved from Ireland to Sydenham in suburban London because of the assassination of Lord Frederick Cavendish and the better income opportunity." W0uld it make sense to say why the assasination led to their move (presumably as "English-Irish"?). Also wouldn't "opportunity for better income" read better? YesY Right again. Lazulilasher (talk) 20:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I tend to think of college as something primarily for 18 to 22 year old students, so I would add his ages while enrolled in Dulwich College (since he was done by age 16 to join the merchant marine (shouldn't this be wikilinked - OK, not sure a redirect to ship transport is that helpful?).YesY I added wikilink to British Merchant Navy instead. Lazulilasher (talk) 20:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Try to attribute "suggestions" in the text, so in the Discovery section, "It has been suggested that Scott resented Shackleton's popularity..." might be better as "Huntford has suggested that Scott resented...". There are several similar instances to look at. YesY Also cleared up last section re: Shackleton advert rumour.
  • Please clarify in the 'Interim section what Beardmore was the owner of (tobacoo company? the mill? both?). "Concomitantly, Shackleton prepared for another expedition to the Antarctic by raising funds and thus was active in business ventures such as a tobacco company and as a mill promoter. The owner, William Beardmore was impressed..." YesY Nice catch. Beardmore was the mill owner and that has been clarified. Lazulilasher (talk) 19:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Glad these were helpful, all good improvements, I am tired o fstriming but they are done / met. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Nice pictures and generally good captions. Can you add dates to the first two pictures of Shackleton and the one of his wife? Also would the caption "Working to free the ship" be better as "Working to free the Endurance"? Some of the pictures are very small (this one, launching the James Caird..) - might want to make all thumb size. YesY All done, except for the date of photo of Shackleton's wife--I am not sure, but I left a message on the Wikicommons userpage of the user who uploaded it. If the date is required for GA, the photo can be removed.
Dates not required, just good to add those available. FYI, the picture in the infobox is still not dated (he looks about 12 there) ;-) Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions (not needed for Good Article, but helpful, especially if you are going for FA later):

  • Since this is a biography article, please add {{persondata}}, see WP:PDATA. YesY
  • I would see if you could get a map of Antarctica showing places mentioned here. I found this map Image:James caird voyage1.PNG in Harry McNish, which is an FA and may be a model article. YesY Good point, the map helps to show how the enormity of the voyage Lazulilasher (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I would move these two sentences "Shackleton refused to pack supplies for more than four weeks, knowing that if they did not make land by that time the boat would be lost. And indeed, after 14 days, the crew was within sight of South Georgia." to after the block quote on the voyage - talk of the voyage, then the block quote on how awful the conditions were, then the arrival. Now the block quote is a bit anticlimactic, coming after the sighting of South Georgia. YesY Good catch, your suggestion adds significantly to the narrative. I agree and have moved the sentences. Lazulilasher (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Glad these helped - I really like the french map Finetooth found. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope this helps - great article in general and these are minor points to make it meet GA criteria. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on a good article. I think it is also close to FA, though FAC is almost always full of surprises. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dividing the work

Hi Lazulilasher. I'll be happy to work on the MOS issues raised above in the helpful review by Ruhrfisch . Since you probably have more source texts at hand than I, can you tackle the general issues mentioned in the review? I can help with at least some of those too when I've finished with the MOS things. Finetooth (talk) 18:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Oops. I see you're three minutes ahead of me this time. Good for you. Finetooth (talk) 18:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Sure, please help. I'm working on it and will check off what I complete as we don't duplicate each other. I think I'll start at the bottom of the list and work up, and if you start at the top and work down we shouldn't contradict? Oh well....I'm happy the reviewer left an in-depth review. Lazulilasher (talk) 18:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] British spelling

I see you've changed "travelling" to "traveling." Don't we want to go in the other direction to all-British? Oh, well, upon checking WP:SPELLING just now, I find an "English spelling comparison chart" that says traveling and travelling are both acceptable in the U.K. and Ireland. So your change is OK. We can consult that chart if we see others that we're not sure of. Finetooth (talk) 18:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Haha! For some reason I can't get my mind to do this right....what I tried to do was load up the article into MSWORD and then use the UK spelling dictionary--but even that doesn't seem to work correctly. Thanks for the offer to help, any assistance is appreciated. I think I've gotten most spelling to the UK norms, but I cannot be sure as the incorrect spellings down stand-out to my American eyes ;) Anyway, thanks for your help (again). Let's just go through the list together and we'll scratch out what we complete. Lazulilasher (talk) 18:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Not all caps

I'm whittling away at the no-break codes. I found a nest of "pp. 1" and similar things that I had forgotten need nbsp to hold the parts together. I notice that you've put the famous ad in all CAPS. That's a no-no, even if the original source does it that way. The MOS says, "Avoid writing in all capitals: 1. Reduce newspaper headlines and other titles from all caps to title case: Replace "WAR BEGINS TODAY" with "War Begins Today". This is what The New York Times does when transcribing its historical collection." Even though this isn't a headline, I'm sure the preferred method is to write it in normal main text letters, using caps only where you would normally use them such as with the first letter of the first word in a sentence. Finetooth (talk) 19:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep, you're right. Fixed. Lazulilasher (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Slashing protocol

I vaguely remember seeing somewhere that the reviewer does the slash coding when repairs are made to his/her satisfaction. Should we perhaps not be adding the slashes but only the checkmarks and our comments? I am new to this particular wiki process, so I don't know from personal experience. Finetooth (talk) 20:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't have an idea either. This is my second GA review, with the other being completed simultaneously....hmm...I'll take the slashes out as I don't want to step on any toes. Good save. :) Lazulilasher (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Irish nationalists

Hi Lazulilasher. We may have cross-edited that sentence about why the Shackletons left Ireland. I re-cast it and tried to make clear what scared them. Does it now make sense, or should we tweak some more? Finetooth (talk) 21:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you've nailed the perfect phrasing. It makes sense now. Lazulilasher (talk) 21:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Map

Lazulilasher, Please take a look at [2] for a great map of the voyages of Endurance and Aurora. It's in French, but you are fluent in French. It could be converted to English, I'm sure, and used with this or other articles related to Shackleton. Finetooth (talk) 01:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that map is perfect. Do you know how to edit the file? If so, I'd gladly provide translation for you. It would make a great addition to the article as it helps show the enormity of the distance travelled traveled (? I can't remember which is correct now....) Lazulilasher (talk) 16:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't know how, but I'm making myself learn. It may take me a while, and I'll surely need your help at some point. I'll keep you posted. Finetooth (talk) 18:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] See also redux

The old See also section had two links that were not also in the article: The Endurance: Shackleton's Legendary Antarctic Expedition (film) and Polar exploration. I think both of these could be added back in. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

YesY Good catch, and I thank you. Polar exploration fit nicely into the lead, and the documentary went into the Legacy section. Finetooth (talk) 05:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New map

It ain't Rembrandt, but it might be better than the smaller James Caird map. I added it to the trans-Antarctic section and moved the smaller South Georgia map to the James Caird section. I don't know if any or all of this is an improvement, and I would welcome feedback and constructive criticism of the layout, caption, and the map itself. This is my first venture into map making and my first serious encounter with MS Paint. The French-language map that I modified to make this map was itself a modification of a U.S. government (C.I.A. World Factbook) map in the public domain. The original has more detailed labels, and the caption variant used in the Imperial_Trans-Antarctic_Expedition article has color-coding that I decided against. Anyway, all things Wikipedian are subject to change, and my feelings will not be hurt if this map does not pass muster, gets modified, or gets sent back whence it came. Suggestions welcome. Finetooth (talk) 04:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks very nice - the only thing I would suggest is adding the name South Georgia Island to it (not sure all readers will know that it is the same as Grytviken as the article refers mostly to South Georgia and Stromenss (sp?)). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Good suggestion. I may wait a day or two to see if other suggestions appear and then create a revised version. After I had almost finished this version, I began to wonder if some other font might be better for map labels. I usually use Times-Roman for printed texts, but something else might work better here. Finetooth (talk) 05:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
And this morning I see two mistakes. I have incorrectly called the ocean next to Antarctica the Arctic Ocean. No, that's half a world away. It's the Antarctic Ocean. I have added this to my "fix" list for the coming revision. Finetooth (talk) 18:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Version 2 of the map is installed. In this one, South Georgia replaces Grytviken; the two Arctic Ocean labels have been removed and not replaced by anything since geographers are divided about whether a separate Antarctic Ocean exists, and labels for the South Sandwich Islands and Kerguelen Islands have been added. I re-did the small labels in Tahoma bold, a sans-serif font that seems more clear than Times Roman. Finetooth (talk) 00:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
It looks nice - I have used Arial Narrow, which is also sans serif, but may try Tahoma. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wife born Lily Marie Dorman ?

An editor added this, but there is not a single Ghit, and the change of first name for her appears really abnormal. I think it should be removed again unless someone can find a source for it really fast. Greswik (talk) 17:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I find no support for Lily Marie either. The Kent Archeological Society supports Emily Mary, but most sources seem to stick to Emily Dorman. Please see Item 273 on the archeological society page at [3] for confirmation. If support for "Lily Marie" can be found, we can always revert again. Meanwhile, I reverted to Emily Dorman. Finetooth (talk) 19:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Good lord, Finetooth. You got this posted again about 30 seconds before I could put my response on here. I've always seen Emily. If a source is found we can revert. Good catch everyone. Lazulilasher (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stand, not run

Dabbler, I have a tin ear for this. Would it be OK simply to substitute "stand" for "run", or would that sound strange in the U.K. as well? The changed sentence would say, "Shackleton was married to Emily Dorman and was involved in land-based work that included an unsuccessful stand for parliament and business ventures aimed at raising revenue for his polar explorations." Your help in changing the U.S. constructions to U.K. constructions is much appreciated. If you spot any more, please change them. Finetooth (talk) 20:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Would "candidate" be OK? "Shackleton was married to Emily Dorman, was an unsuccessful candidate for parliament, and was involved in land-based work that included business ventures aimed at raising revenue for his polar explorations." I am familiar with standing for Parliament, but thought this might avoid the issue. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

That would work, I also am not very happy with land-based, how about ""Shackleton was married to Emily Dorman, was an unsuccessful candidate for parliament, and was involved in business ventures aimed at raising revenue for his polar explorations." Dabbler (talk) 20:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this is better all-around. You have both improved the sentence. I'll post it, and we can change it again later if it still does not meet with everyone's approval. Finetooth (talk) 21:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Btw, if anyone is interested, Firefox users can download here a British English dictionary which can help with spellchecking. However, it's no substitute for a native speaker, really. Lazulilasher (talk) 14:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Good suggestion. I immediately downloaded it to my Firefox browser. You are right, though, we need User:Dabbler to keep us on track. I see that User:Michael Devore just caught another American spelling with his eagle eye and fixed it. More may be lurking elsewhere in the article. Finetooth (talk) 18:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely-I'm sure there are still a number of 'americanisms'--it's just that it is very difficult for me to pick them out. The "running" for Parliament was my error--I should have known better on that one. I'm glad there is someone who can pick out those mistakes. Lazulilasher (talk) 18:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
It now reads pretty well, i did a quick run through and changed some wording but nothing very major. I don't have a copy of the reference "Mill" and I saw that it is the source for the (to me) unusual job title of "secretary and treasury" which was offered to Shackleton. I would have expected "secretary and treasurer". Can anyone confirm the quote? Dabbler (talk) 12:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I just looked it up and Mill says "secretaryship" page 127. I'm not sure where the "secretary and treasury" bit came from.....Lazulilasher (talk) 13:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Map error

Another user has noted an error on my route map. I used Minna Bluff as the end point for the supply depot route. It appears that I should have used Beardmore Glacier. Even though the brown route will stay the same, I should probably change the label and upload a corrected version. Before I do that, I wanted to run this by you all to make sure you agree with the change and to see if any of you have seen anything else on the map that could be improved. Finetooth (talk) 14:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not on expert on the expedition, so I can not check for factual errors. I do not see any obvious spelling or other errors. Being very picky, the orange line passing the label for the Ross Sea looks a little thinner than all the other lines - as if a pixel or two got shaved off it (or a label covered part of it). Also the label for the South Pole is of a font, type face and color used only for continents and nations elsewhere on the map. Since it was the goal of all these expeditions, I am OK with that, just thought I would point it out. The ever picky Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
So, Finetooth, in addition to spot-on copy-editing you also do graphics now, huh? I think the graphic looks great, there's only one thing I see. This may be nitpicking, but "New Zealand"'s label get cut off on the bottom. Otherwise, it looks great. I'm trying to bring the article into line w/ Yomangani's comments at FAC--so please let me know if anything I add looks extraneous. I'm doing all the edits in small batches so you can undo anything with ease. Also, thanks for copy-editing the recent edits. That's so awesome. Lazulilasher (talk) 17:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for these tips. I'll incorporate everyone's suggestion in the revision. Meanwhile, Yomangan has confirmed that Beardmore is correct. Finetooth (talk) 19:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Featured Article

Well done to all concerned for your work in getting this great article to featured article status. Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shackleton's RN Commission, etc

In the "Between Discovery and Nimrod" section you say that that Shackleton was "offered a position in the Royal Navy as a lieutenant". This is not the case. Both his main biographers, Fisher and Huntford, deal with this: Shackleton applied in 1903 for a regular commision, with the support of Sir Clements Markham and the Royal Society President, but was turned down. See Huntford, p123, Fisher pp 79-80. I have edited the sentence accordingly. Also, same paragraph, Emily Dorman was 6 years older than Shackleton and therefore 35 not 29, and the post Shackleton accepted was the secretaryship of the Royal Scottish Geographical Society, not the RGS. Again, I have edited these.

Later on it says that Shackleton acted as a "mill promoter". Odd description - what exactly does it mean? Brianboulton (talk) 22:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Confusions over the ship's position

  • Quote: "In May the Antarctic sun set for the last time before winter, and Endurance kept its position until spring in the hope that warmer weather would free the vessel from the ice". On 2 May Shackleton records its latitude as 75°23'S, and on 1 August, well before spring, its latitude was already 71°23'S, four whole degrees further north. Surely the crew's hopes depended on the ship drifting into warmer latitudes by the spring, not on "keeping its position", whatever is meant by that?
  • Quote:"After a few days, on 27 October Shackleton gave the abandon-ship order and on 21 November 1915 Endurance finally slipped beneath the waves at 69°00'S, 51°30'W". According to South, 69°05'S (not 69°00') 51°30'W was the position on 27 October when the ship was abandoned, not the sinking position 25 days later. Shackleton does not record the sinking position, but maps indicate it to be at least a degree further north and east beyond the abandonment. I haven't seen Worsley's account - he may have recorded both positions.

Brianboulton (talk) 17:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I have now incorporated the necessary corrections into the article. Brianboulton (talk) 23:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Need a good source for the Priestley quote

There are quite a few web pages claiming that (later Sir) Raymond Priestley said

“ For scientific leadership, give me Scott, for swift and efficient travel give me Amundsen. But when you are in a hopeless situation, when you are seeing no way out, get down on your knees and pray for Shackleton. Incomparable in adversity, he was the miracle worker who would save your life against all the odds and long after your number was up. The greatest leader that ever came on God's earth, bar none. ”

It would be nice to include auch a lovely eulogy, but a good source is needed. Can anyone find one? 71.41.210.146 (talk) 07:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, everyone else quotes it so it would be good for this article to get something authoritative. Googling, I have found that it is quoted seemingly authoritatively by A Fuchs "In Shackleton's Wake" [4] and by L Sweet "Summoned to Lead" [5] at page 28 here, footnote 22 where it cites Dunnett "Shackleton's Boat" page 96 (but there seems to be some confusion over attribution). Assuming it is in Dunnett's book,[6] this would be a very good source. It looks as if Priestley himself did not publish the quoted words. Thincat (talk) 12:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
The above wording is a loose paraphrase from Apsley Cherry-Garrard, who in the preface to The Worst Journey in the World (omitted from many editions) wrote: "For a joint scientific and georaphical piece of organisation, give me Scott: for a Winter Journey, Wilson; for a dash to the Pole and nothing else, Amundsen: and if I am in the devil of a hole and want to get out of it, give me Shackleton every time". It is possible that Priestley said similar words. I will incorporate Cherry=Garrard's tribute into the article. Brianboulton (talk) 14:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Good. I wonder who spoke on these lines first. Priestley was the more eloquent, in my opinion. Thincat (talk) 20:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anglo-Irish

An anon IP changed Anglo-Irish to just Irish. I reverted, and added references to Shakelton's Anglo-Irish background--Work permit (talk) 19:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)