Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Antarctica

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Antarctica

I've worked on this quite a bit for the past two weeks. I guess you could call this a self-nomination. It's complete and well-referenced. I believe I've resolved all issues presented in its Peer Review. Gflores Talk 00:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Support Solid article, decent footnotes, awesome images. Concise, with appropriate satellite articles for each topic. I think it's pretty good. Deckiller 00:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per Deckiller Captain Jackson 01:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Question would converting the footnotes to Cite.pphp formet cause issues with the editors? I was about to ask at the talk page, but I figured here is no worse a place to do it. Circeus 02:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't mind. I'm not really familiar with that particular reference format, but I guess it's ok. Is that format better in some way? You're free to change it if you want. :) Gflores Talk 02:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
      • As far as the wiki source code is concerned, it leaves the reference in it's location within the text and takes only one tag (<references />) at the bottom of the article. All links between notes and footnotes are generated automatically. It is that technique that is used in otehr FAC Salsa music Circeus 02:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, it's done now, how does it look? I hope I didn't mix any notes in my copy-pasting. Circeus 04:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Looks great, thanks! Gflores Talk 04:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll support with slight concern that Antarctica is more complete on that topic than "main article" Geography of Antarctica. Circeus 04:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. --BACbKA 10:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • oppose - dislike the reference style William M. Connolley 10:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment the ref/ref system used is a perfectly legit inline citation system used, so that is not a valid objection. I personally prefer the ref/note system, but ref/ref has been used by other FAs.Rlevse 15:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Invalid reason to object. Gflores Talk 17:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I understand that complaints about other ref styles have been considered valid elsewhere William M. Connolley 17:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Is this really actionable? (i.e. is it possible to find a system that satisfies every editor?) Why do you dislike it? –Joke 21:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
    • This is really a marker for elsewhere (global warming) - I prefer inline links, and am often told that these are "forbidden" for FAC. I'll be delighted if people insist that ref style is inadmissable as a criterion. William M. Connolley 22:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC).
      • I really don't want to step into a firestorm here, but I can aboslutely tell you that inline ref style is currently innadmissable as a FAC objection. The reason is simple: there is no consensus over which style is best, so any style that is used and retains the citation information and does it well is fine. That has been consistently held for a long time. Although now that cite.php has gotten so much work into it, I can see that it will eventually be the preferred form. - Taxman Talk 05:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Taxman is right, any inline citation system is currently acceptable (this means the footnote somehow appears in the bottom somehow) and that the only INacceptable system is external links being in the text as it causes the reader to jump out of the article. An Inacceptable external link for FAC purposes appears like this: Go to Google[1]
          • No, the footnote doesn't have to appear at the bottom, there doesn't have to be a footnote at all. Footnotes are not compulsory. Please note this, as reviewers frequently, mistakenly, state or imply that footnotes are a must for FAs. Not true. While inline links are deprecated, for good reasons, inline parenthetic references to print sources are perfectly acceptable. Like this (Raul, 654), where Raul is the author of a source listed in the References section. See FA John Vanbrugh for an example of this style (actually somebody has added one footnote, a rather nice one, since I did the references :-)). Personally, I prefer wherever possible to avoid footnotes, with their distracting jump out of the text and their to some readers off-puttingly "learned" apperance. Bishonen | talk 02:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC).
  • Question before support or oppose: What on earth is Peter di Fazio doing in there? He's not a geographic or historical expert, and his standing derives from an elected office. Secondly, why do you say that it was spotted on 1820 "New Style?" Old Style/New Style relates to a calendar reform in 1711. I.e. every date is "New Style" by 1715. The only time one needs to convert is before that, and the only times we usually perform the conversion is when the date is near the change. (E.g. Robert Gould died in 1708/1709 NS because he died in January 1708, Old Style, but January is in the next year, New Style.) Is there a Russian calendar issue at play? If so, it's probably not great to use the term "New Style" that points to the British reform. Geogre 15:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Ok, I've replaced that source with two others. On the second point, you're right. I've removed the term now. Gflores Talk 17:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support: My objections have been answered. (I figured that there was a Russian calendar reform around the time, so it was more infelicitous phrasing than a non-germane point.) Geogre 23:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Minor objections - I agree with Geogre - how is diFazio considered an authorative source compared to the NSF, etc? Also, in the "Flora and fauna" section, I don't particularly like the text sandwiched between two images. Would it be possible to move it down? Overall, though, great article. Thanks! <Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Intersting points. The Flora/Fauna issue may vary based on screen size and resolution. Deckiller 16:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I've reorganized the pictures across the article forright/left alternancy. A specific picfor the Flora section would be nice, though. The current one doesn't make much sense. Circeus 18:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
        • I'm not sure I like the new layout, some of the pictures go off into other sections. (see my comment on the talk page). I would like to hear some input from other people on this new look. A lichen picture is on the way for the flora section. On second thought, it's ok. I don't feel to strongly about it now that I've removed the seal image and inserted the lichen image. Gflores Talk 19:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Regarding the diFrazio source, I've now removed it. For the images, I'm not sure where it should/could be moved. I guess I could just take one of them out. It looks good to me. :) Do you have a suggestion for where to move it? Gflores Talk 17:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
      • The new picture format looks good! However, I still have a disagreement with the wording of the sentence where the diFazio quote was; it reads: According to various sources (...) and other sources... Surely a synonym for sources can be found? (The close parenthesis was also missing, something I've rectified.) This should be a relatively minor fix, but I can't think of a good wording now. Also, please don't strike my comments out; if the objections been fixed, I'll do that, or if I forget, feel free to remind me. (Otherwise, Raul will notice that it's already been fixed, even without strikeout.) However, don't assume anything. :-) Thanks a lot! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Ok, I changed the first 'sources' to organizations. Thanks for the quick fix and sorry for striking out your comments, I wasn't sure if I did that or someone else. Gflores Talk 23:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: is there a reference provided in the article noting that the Greek translation means "opposite of the Arctic"? After searching it through a few times, I can't find one. —Eternal Equinox | talk 18:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Hmm, I didn't know references were needed for translations... see Xiangqi, Oxyrhynchus. But alright, I've added a source. :) Gflores Talk 18:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • You are not allowed to strike other people's comments, regardless if they re-address them or not. However, I support. —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object, I have one fundamental and a few technical concerns:
    • The "History" section only covers the period from the late 17th century to 1911 and only mentions discoveries and firsts. A quote from one of the references: "Of the world’s 61,000 nonfiction papers and books published about the Antarctic since the earliest papers dating from the 1600s, 91 percent have been published since 1951." Perhaps re-name to "Discovery" or extend to include post-1912 happenings.
    • The first sentence is a one-sentence paragraph. An article may be able to get away with that in the body but not as the introductory paragraph, and especailly when there are three other paragraphs in the introductory section. The first sentence is excellent but does not stand on its own as a paragraph.
    • The reference concerning James Cook does not support the statement. Also, please clarify what "crossed the Antarctic Circle" means, that is its relevance/importance (the "Geography" section is still a couple sentences away).
    • All values should have a "& n b s p ;"  (why doesn't nowiki work with that?) between the number and the unit. --maclean25 20:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I've made some changes. For the intro, I like how it begins with a one-liner, I've seen other FAs do this and I think it looks fine. However, I have added another line (about its geography). I changed history to exploration and added a bit more. Changed reference for James Cook. I'm not familiar with "&nbsp ;", where do I use it and why? Maybe someone can help me out here? Gflores Talk 21:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Can someone please provide a reference for the volcanoe section? I am having a difficult time fact-checking this. --maclean25 03:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Rewrote it with references. Also added image of Mt. Erebus. I've added the non-breaking spaces now. Gflores Talk 07:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support A great article. --Siva1979Talk to me 05:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support –Joke 21:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Nice article. Rlevse 12:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support As it is one of the greatest articles and is about one of the greatest places on Earth. Tarret 20:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Nice article, good layout. Pretty confident this will be a featured article. Uncke Herb 01:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Object I so wanted to support this article since its layout and the content that is there is so great. However, we can't have an article on a continent be featured without a section on the geology of the place. VERY important things absent; that it was part of the supercontinent Pangaea, then a couple other continents, and finally its separation from Australia and India prior to it becoming stuck centered on the South Pole and then froze over. What's is even more astounding is the lack of a mention that our current cold climate (ice ages interrupted by inter-glacial periods) is in large part due to the formation of a circumpolar current around Antarctica and albedo from reflected snow that formed on it. That in turn reduced forests in Africa and encouraged grasses to take over. In other words, the geology of Antarctica is linked to getting our evolutionary ancestors out of the trees and standing to see over the grass. WE CANNOT feature this article until it gets a geology section. If I have time I will help, but until then this article can't get featured. Also, no mention that at one time parts of Antarctica had huge forests, swamps, dinosaurs, and very abundant life. Think about questions a child may ask or want to know; Why is Antarctica cold? Was it always like it is today? --mav 03:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Most of my objections have been fixed. --mav
  • Object for now per mav. Even simple things like coal deposits are only mentioned in passing under Economy, even though it is a huge part of the theory of continental drift and modern geology. --Rory096 06:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Reluctant oppose - the article is great, but not comprehensive enough. I'd like to see 'Antarctica in fiction' section (references in culture, popular and otherwise), an explanation of where does the name come from (ethymology), something more on history of continent before the 'discovery' and exploration age (geology per mav), a paragraph on faune and flora before the continent was covered in ice and finally, at least a comment on the theories that there was some human (?) civilization (Daniken, Atlantis, etc. - perhaps in the popular culture section).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 04:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, well done. --Terence Ong 16:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
    • How can you support given the above objections? Do you not think that having information on the geology of a continent is important to have in an article on that continent? --mav
  • Comment It's a lovely article and I'd like to support, but there is one small problem I noticed. Tourism is mentioned only in passing, but from news accounts I've read for the past several years, Antarctic tourism has increased rapidly over the past decade with many cruise ships coming from Chile, New Zealand, and Australia. Some people are now concerned about environmental effects and talking about a yearly tourist limit. Has anybody else heard about these issues? I think they should be mentioned in the article. --Sophitus 09:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Almost there. No full object because this is quite excellent. The Geology section exists now per Mav but needs a little more meat. Effects of Global warming should be mentioned directly rather than just alluded to. I'm neither here nor there on the "in fiction" stuff, but if it addresses others objections and swings this close to an FA, go for it. Otherwise, good job. Marskell 13:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The article covers the Antarctic Continent proper, while in the English language 'Antarctica' refers both to the mainland and the wider geographical region comprising also the islands and waters situated south of the Antarctic Convergence. (See the article Livingston Island for further details.) Arguably, the article ought to cover the rest of Antarctica as well. Apcbg 23:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)