Talk:Terra Nova Expedition

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Terra Nova Expedition article.
Article policies
Featured article star Terra Nova Expedition 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.
Antarctica
Antarctica Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Antarctica, which collaborates on articles related to Antarctica. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Clarification

This article is a virtual total rewrite, based on the "General rewrite plan" which I posted on 10 January, below. Most of the comments posted on this page above that plan relate to the former article and don't apply to its current version. Brianboulton (talk) 01:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Terra Nova expedition

There is information in the Robert Scott page section on the Terra Nova expedition that is not included - or differs from - what is included here. The narrative in that article is also somehow more readable than that which is here (perhaps partly because the prose isn't broken up into so many small sections). I'm not up for making the edits myself, but maybe someone with the interest/skill could?--Anchoress 07:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I have been working over on the Aspley Cherry-Garrard page, suggesting a rationalisation between the articles on the individual members of the expedition, and this article - which in my view should be the main source of information on the expedition. This would involve a serious 'inflation' of the contents of this article. It seems a workable prospect - there is some good documentation around - not the least Scott's Diaries and Aspley Cherry-Garrard's 'The Worst Journey in the World'.
The expedition has interest (which I believe justifies an expansion) as a historical event, but also as a study of risk and endeavour that reflects in some ways questions about manned space flight, and the Space Shuttle program particularly. Scott's military/scientific expeditions to the Antarctic was sponsored by the most powerful nation on Earth (at the time), but underfunded, and crudely characterised as a race to the South Pole rather than a scientific endeavour. It was also more widely known for it's tragedy than it's achievements. Tban 04:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Working on the list of expedition members, initially just to give people the opportunity to see that it wasn't just five men who died. I thought it was pointless to list nationalities, but remembered that some were Australians. Starting to pull all the details - at least one Canadian! And of course Dimitri, Gran etc. Puts an international slant on it. The list of occupations also gives a feel for the Navy/Science mix. And a chance to put links in (at least) for members who don't have their own Wiki articles. Also indicating their 'journeys' during the expedition, and if they had previous experience.Tban 00:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Have filled in some details of Terra Nova's movements. Intend to fill out further and note scientific or cargo activities. I expect some might see this as 'too detailed' and more about the ship than the expedition. My point is that the expedition 'included' the ship (basically paid to keep it busy for 3 years) and the ship did more than carry cargo - it was in a sense partly functioning like one of our modern research vessels IN THE PAY OF, AND IN THE SERVICE OF, the Terra Nova expedition. Consequently the detail belongs in the article about the expedition, not the article about the ship.Tban 14:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Re above:I have entered more movements of the ship, which makes this section very long, even with only brief details of what the ship was doing. The island visited after Funchal was South Trinidad (now called Trindade), not "South Trinity" as you had it - this is in a different location entirely. I have made this alteration. Personally I would shorten the section by deleting everything before Terra Nova set sail for antarctica on 26th Nov 1910Brianboulton (talk) 23:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Have added in section about previous expeditions (sourced from Wiki). Interesting - turns out there was a long history of Norwegian involvement in the area - you don't get that information from Cherry-Garrard or Scott up-front. About to write a section about the Cape Evans Base, then a series of 'Journey' sections - starting with the Northern Party (Campbell) who found Amundsen, the Depot laying journey, the winter journey (Cape Crozier), the polar journey and the search. I'd also like to do something on the first and second western Geological journeys but I don't know that I'll get much on them. Then I'd like a section on the 'science achievements' of the expedition - which wd probably include some reference to careers that expeditioners subsequently followed.Tban 15:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Will put 'achievements' (which I originally thought I'd put at the end of the article) within each section dealing with each journey. For example South Pole journey includes rock samples from interior. Also want to list expeditioners books even if no longer in print, And need to draw some maps and that'll about wrap it up Tban 00:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I have altered "Birdy" to Birdie in the list of expedition members as this is the generally used spelling. Brianboulton (talk) 19:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Footnotes

Started a References (footnotes) section, will add more as I get through The Worst Journey in the World. This page is in desperate need of more.Zatoichi26 02:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] -40C = minus 40F

Cherry-Garrard and Dimitri arrived back at Hut Point on 15 March. Atkinson and Keohane who were at Hut Point made a foray south between March 27 and April 1, but could not reach the One Ton supply dump, noting that weather conditions were extreme, blizzards and minus 40 °F (−40 °C).

I ran across this and was momentarily stunned by the seeming inaccuracy, so I did the conversion myself. So, to preempt readers like me, -40 F really is the same as -40 C. Phil 21:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Worst Journey in the World

From the 1st paragraph, I removed "It is also known as The Worst Journey in the World after its account in a book by one of its members." since this is not really correct, Cherry-Garrard called the 1911 winter journey to Cape Crozier the "worst journey" not the main expedition as the sentence implied (ref: p. 304 of Cherry-Garrard's book). I decided not to rewrite the sentence where it was because similar reference to the "worst journey" is rightly provided in the "Cape Crozier" section. I am going to edit that section to make the link to the Worst Journey article and provide reference to Cherry-Garrard's book.Zatoichi26 02:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First Paragraph

The first sentence used to read "...with the purpose of undertaking scientific research and exploration..." and only later in the paragraph did it mention the goal to be the first to the Pole. Not sure if it was worded that way on purpose but it sounded as if the journey to the Pole was secondary to the science. Scott felt the science was important (and it played an important role in obtaining funding for the expedition) but his primary goal was to be the first to the Pole for Britain. I re-worded it in this vein. Zatoichi26 14:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General rewrite plan

There hasn't been much activity on this article for a while, other than my minor corrections and alterations, mainly in the Northern Party section. If people are losing interest then that's a pity, because this important subject is deserving of the best possible article.

I've studied the text carefully, also the various comments on this discussion page, and have prepared a plan for improving it. The overall aim is to get the best factual article on the expedition rather than on the issues surrounding it. The following is I believe a way forward:-

  • Remove/substantially shorten lists. Specifically, remove altogether the list of previous expeditions and shorten the others. Too much information in a list or table can obscure rather than clarify, so the list of the ship's movements should be condensed to a short summary of Terra Nova's three voyages in support of the expedition, and included in an appendix at the end, along with the memorabilia list. The list of expedition members should be simplified to a form as, for example, in Scott's Last Expedition - there's no need for mini-biographies as all the main names are linked to their own biographical articles. Also, get rid of photo links which don't work.
  • Several new sections are necessary: on the organisation, aims and financing of the expedition, on Scott's chosen methods of transport and, within the Main Expedition Journeys section, a summary of the Western (geological) journeys. At the end of the article a short concluding paragraph would be appropriate.
  • Generally restructure, so that (for example) the main exploration/scientific journeys are separated from those concerned with depot laying, re-supply or search parties.
  • The text needs redrafting to ensure factual accuracy throughout, and referencing needs to be improved by making use of a wider range of sources than Cherry-Garrard's account. Use should be made of footnotes. I also think that the neutrality of some sections, e.g. the One Ton Depot resupply account, needs attention.
  • This expedition is unfortunately inseparable from controversies and debates, mainly about Scott. Other than acknowledging that such areas of contention exist, I think this article should not attempt to engage with these debates. The article will become far too long. Nor do I think that the link to the Debates section of the Scott article is a particularly good idea - that section contains highly questionable statements which are asserted as fact, and has very few cited sources in an altogether over-long exposition.

I am ready to proceed with the above. I'd be interested to hear other suggestions.Brianboulton (talk) 18:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Brianboulton, I added quite a bit of info and citations from Cherry-Garrard's book, nominated it for Good Article and then I got busy and never came back to it! Glad to see someone else is carrying the torch. :) I agree with removing the list of expeditions. The complete list of team members & their titles should stay as I don't think there's a complete list anywhere else on Wikipedia and it provides links to their bio pages where available. If the link to the Scott article is deleted, perhaps a short section could be added on the reasons for failure/controversies and bring the relevant info from the Scott article? (this would follow suggestion from Anynobody who reviewed the Good Article application) Another good source is Scott's diary, if you're willing to read & cite that. Also I think a good picture of the Terra Nova, or a group photo of some of the men would really add to the article, but I'm not sure where to find one that isn't copyrighted. Everything else you mentioned sounds good to me. Zatoichi26 (talk) 01:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Zatoichi26 for your comments. A complete list of expedition members is certainly necessary & will stay. What I don't think is necessary is the jumble of biographical detail at present cluttering the list. I envisage something like the list, ship's party and all, which appears at the beginning of Scott's Last Expedition. The link to the Scott article should also stay, but worded more cautiously. There will indeed be references in my revised text to controversies, but space won't allow for full discussion however tempting this might be. I have read Scott's diary, all of it, & it will be a main source for the revised article together with more contemporary chroniclers. I agree that the whole question of pictures needs looking at, but I'm going to work on the text first & deal with images laterBrianboulton (talk) 01:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The first stage of the overhaul has been posted. More to follow soonBrianboulton (talk) 00:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


I have now posted more. There is still more to come, including some rearrangements of material. May I ask that the article is not edited before I have finished? If you think something needs doing, mention it here and I'll take it on board. I will make it clear when I have finished. Note: I have temporarily deleted the "rations and diet" paragraph which will be included later, with other inf, in an appendixBrianboulton (talk) 23:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I have now completed my revisions, in accordance with the general rewrite plan outlined above. I have included several new photo images, whilst retaining the photo links from the unrevised article that work, and discarding those that didn't. I will no doubt tinker with the article a bit over the next days, but won't be making any more major changes or additions. It should be noted that all the comments above the plan outline, including some from me, and including the failed "good article" nomination, refer to the pre-revision version of the article and some of the references won't apply any more.Brianboulton (talk) 19:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Nice work Brianboulton, the article looks 100% better. Congratulations on getting it to GA status. You removed almost all my citations from Cherry-Garrard's book though! Zatoichi26 (talk) 18:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
The problem was that in the earlier version, CG was pretty well the only source cited. In my view, despite the excellence of his book, he is not a neutral observer and his judgments need to be treated cautiously when preparing a factual article. He is still the main source cited in the Winter Journey section. If you think the article could be improved further, please let me know how.Brianboulton (talk) 01:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA

I have passed this article at WP:GAN. Please see Talk:Terra Nova Expedition/GA 2 for the full review. Good work! The research here is very impressive! Dr. Cash (talk) 00:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Importance rating to Top

I believe that the major historical British Antarctic expeditions should all be rated Top for importance. For some reason, until now only the Scottish National Antarctic Expedition has had top rating. I believe that the Discovery, Nimrod, Terra Nova and Imperial Trans-Antarctic expeditions are not less important than the SNAE, so I am adjusting the ratings accordingly. Brianboulton (talk) 14:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)