Talk:Scottish National Antarctic Expedition/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    There is a discrepancy between the Queen's English and American English in the usage of commas that caused some issues, but I will pass this with the lax comma usage.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

I have many issues that I have compiled in a partial enumeration. The biggest issues are the lack of use of commas, sparse linkage as it relates to technical terms and places, WP:CAPTION and WP:LEAD.

Here is close review of the first half of the article:

  • Commas missing:
    • In March of that year,
    • However, his proposal
    • The SNAE, therefore, went
    • During his student years,
    • In 1892,
    • Meanwhile,
    • By then,
    • Thus, the idea
    • Almost every subsequent sentence is missing one. Please reread. Generally, lead with a prepositional phrase that needs to be offset by a comma from the subject.
      • I would like to discuss the question of commas - we may have differing views. I'll come back on this later. Brianboulton (talk) 14:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
        • This is a big issue, so an explanation would help.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
          • This is to explain how I use commas. When placement determines the meaning of a sentence, there is no room for argument. Thus: “Men who watch football are idiots” (restrictive) has a different meaning from “Men, who watch football, are idiots” (non-restrictive). There can be no compromise in the use of commas in such sentences. However, when commas are merely representing a pause in a sentence, the rules of usage tend to be more flexible. Brit-Eng is generally fairly relaxed about these “pause” commas, allowing for variations of style. Thus in Brit-Eng the sentence: “In March of that year, he applied to join the National Antarctic Expedition” would be acceptable with or without the comma. The same is true for many other sentences in the article. My own tendency is not to overdo comma usage, as I find too many pauses distracting. At FAC I have been required to delete commas for this very reason. However, it seems that you have a different perspective, and I am happy to accommodate this. With this in mind I have been through every one of the 120-odd sentences in the article. I didn’t find any cases where the meaning was ambiguous due to my comma usage, but there were instances of carelessness and others of poor placement, and these have been rectified. There were also what I consider to be 50:50 situations; with these I have generally tried to meet your implied wishes, and have thus added considerably to the comma count. If you have remaining problems with this issue, can you please be specific as to which sentences you are referring to? Or feel free to insert any missing commas or delete superfluous ones yourself. Brianboulton (talk) 15:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
            • Certainly, a Scottish Expedition article should be written in the Queen's English rather than American english. Thus, I won't hassle you on commas unless it is necessary. I will take you word for it that you folks across the pond are a bit lax on commas.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "by studies" at s/b in the gerundive with either by studying or by undertaking studies
  • Many terms are unfamiliar to me and would be to the general reader. I would be satisfied with a decent link for many of them. You should not have lengthy paragraphs with no links. Even those with one or two links are alarming. Also, at WP:CAPTION, the exemplary captions each have a link or two.
    • I have increased the links, and made a few text alterations to deal with unfamilar terms. If you can identify any other terms which you think would not be understood by a general reader, please let me know. I am sorry if you find paragraphs with only one or two links "alarming", but useful links can't always be contrived, and often the link has been made in an earlier paragraph. I have introduced appropriate links into the image captions. Brianboulton (talk) 14:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Link
    • Every geographic location, land mass or body or water on its first occurrence in the article such as Weddell Sea and Russia.
    • Polar region is one I think you missed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I can't see Polar region in the text. Where is it? Brianboulton (talk) 17:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
        • You use polar several places in the text where I think you are refering to the polar region. Two or three times in the LEAD alone.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
          • You want a link on polar? OK, done - but that wasn't clear from your initial coment. Brianboulton (talk) 00:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
            • I don't see where it is linked. Also, it is poor form to link to a dab when the dab points to the proper article (polar region in this case).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
              • I apologise. I linked the first mention of polar in the lead, to polar region as requested. It seems I didn't save the link. This is now done. Brianboulton (talk) 20:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
    • two or three words of biological and geological specimens
      • Not sure what this means, but I've linked "biological" and "geological". Brianboulton (talk) 14:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
    • meteorological station
    • whaler
    • £ (I am not sure what unit it represents)
      • Really? The pound sterling (£) symbol is surely known worldwide? Its use has never before been queried - do you realy want me to explain it? Brianboulton (talk) 14:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
    • dark room
    • the first appearance of various fields and professions such as meteorology, geology, biology, topography and terrestrial physics, botanist, geologist, bacteriologist, taxidermist. Are you talking about a seaman?
      • The various scientific fields and professions are now linked. I didn't understand your question about a seaman. Brianboulton (talk) 14:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Is natural science a field?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The term survey/research vessel should be linked and should probably appear in the lead. Are drum, hull, dredging, rudder, specimen and deck terms with links? I don't really know what they mean precisely.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I have linked research vessel, hull, deck and dredging, even though I think these are everyday terms. There is no suitable link for "drum", so I have altered it to "revolving cylinder". There is no link either for "specimen", which is an ordinary English word with a straightforward meaning. Brianboulton (talk) 18:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Thanks for working with me. I think I link about 50% more words than average so feel free to object to any suggestions. Are you objecting to rudder?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
          • I thought I'd linked rudder. If I haven't I'll do it now.Brianboulton (talk) 00:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
            • Rudder is linked
    • When I looked at instrument, I was not sure if Measuring instruments was what you were referring to. If so link, if not dunno.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Either fully cite the WP:LEAD or have no refs at all.
    • I'm not sure that WP:LEAD/citations says this, but I have transferred the cited quotation to another part of the article, so the lead now has no refs. Brianboulton (talk) 15:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I don't know if it is explicitly stated somewhere but everything is suppose to be cited, but often a lead is acceptable uncited with the explanation that everything is cited in the appropriate place in the main body of the text.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • use convert on 25 miles.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • dry-stone surely needs a link and/or explaining.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Can you link mortar and mason?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • with the link we are sent to a page that describes dry stone as a method not a principle. Maybe you should change your terminology.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I've altered the wording to refer to method. Brianboulton (talk) 10:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • choose one of the terms at Sledging to link to or add a new line with at least a redlink if not a stub to link to directly.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm afraid, again, that I've no idea what your request is referring to, or how to respond to it. Brianboulton (talk) 18:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I don't know what sledging is. If it is a term on the dab page please link it. If not put a new line on the dab page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
        • The best link for "sledging" is dog sled, since this describes the type of sledge activity carried out by Mr White in Russia, and by the SNAE in the South Orkneys. I have altered the link from manhauling.
  • Both anchorage and expedition seem to be the primary terms at their respective dab pages. Maybe you should link these terms.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Well I've linked them, but they are poor links. Also, as with "specimen", I see no need to link perfectly straightforward terms. Are you saying that some one reading this article will need to be told what an expedition is? Brianboulton (talk) 18:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
      • People who look for the article will know the term, but you should be preparing the article for a main page audience, IMO. Also, WRT the links, we do not have WP:FAs at al links. Sometimes we have stubs or dabs. If the term is the primary usage at a dab that is sort of equivalent to a stub. The point of linking to stubs is to direct people interested in learning about a topic to a page that they may be able to improve, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
        • I note what you say. At present, however, this is a GA review - issues relating to FAC and main page shouldn't be relevant. Brianboulton (talk) 10:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "helping to classify specimens brought back from the Challenger Expedition" seems to modify its most proximal noun.
  • Back from the Arctic in 1899 s/b After returning from the Arctic in 1899,
  • then being organized by the RGS in London needs to be offset try adding ", which was"
  • ", but not properly answered" s/b either ", but it was not properly answered" or "but not properly answered"
    • What is the problem? My version is the same as your second alternative. Brianboulton (talk) 16:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
    • (Later) I understand now - its a comma question. Fixed Brianboulton (talk) 21:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I think {{convert|6000|fathom|ft m|sigfig=3|lk=on}} might be preferable
    • I agree, and I've used the template for the other fathom conversions. Brianboulton (talk) 16:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • What is a depth sounding? It does not have a link.
  • Does skiing and sledging skills mean x-country skiing and sledding?
    • "Sled" and "sledding" are not BrtitEng terms - we say sledge/sledging. The answer to your question is yes, though I haven't specified cross-country. Brianboulton (talk) 16:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
      • In many parts of the world, sking means Alpine skiing unless otherwise stated. Can you link to cross-country skiing? Americans, who are a large percentage of english WP readers do not use the term sledge or sledging. Can you link that term also?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
        • As noted above, the first mention of sledging, in the Personnel section, is now to dog sled. For clarity's sake, in the First voyage section I have now specified the activity as dog-sledging, and repeated the link. Brianboulton (talk) 10:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I will give you more suggestions later. Since I know how hard you work, I am confident you will work at cleaning this up rather than letting it fail.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

  • voyage, but had remained with the expedition. is not prpoerly conjoined. see prior but problem
  • Port Stanley was reached on 2 December, where needs to be re-written in the active voice with Port Stanley adjacent to its modifying clause. Try "On 2 December, the expedition reached Port Stanley,"
  • In this he was. s/b "In this X, he was" where X is something like effort. Would also be better in active voice.
  • handed over to the Argentine government X s/b handed X over to the Argentine government
  • The British Foreign Office, by cable, registered no objection s/b clearer Something like When contacted by cable, . . . The British Foreign Office registered no objection
    • Fixed. Brianboulton (talk) 16:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I still await an explanation on your lack of comma usage. I think I would use one the way you fixed the sentence. I believe when contacted refers to the most proximate noun, so I think your fix may still be a problem. However, I think you have some queens English point to make about punctuation that may also affect grammatical propriety. Let me know.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
        • I have placed a comma after "scheme". If this is not what you want, and if you want to re-organize the sentence, can I ask you to do so, in accordance with "GAN: How to review an article#5". Otherwise we will be playing an extended guessing game. I will deal with the general comma issue shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 11:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • replacements being recruited locally. does not belong in that sentence.
  • Now you have to do something about the {{fact}} tag.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • What is pack ice?
  • 159 fathoms≠654 ft probably s/b 109
    • No, it was 159 and should have been 954 feet. However, the template has taken care of this. Brianboulton (talk) 16:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)Brianboulton (talk) 15:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • need space before "Bruce fought for years"

--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

    • I don't know why, but most of my responses have disappeared from this page. I will have to do them all over again. Nightmare!!! Brianboulton (talk) 15:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I've posted my deleted responses, will now tackle the new queries
    • I've responded to your additional points. As you will see, one problem I have is that I don't always understand what you are asking - my fault, no doubt, but can I ask for simplicity? Brianboulton (talk) 18:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.