Talk:Ross expedition/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Kostas20142 (talk · contribs) 13:53, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I will take up and review this nomination --Kostas20142 (talk) 13:53, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

review table

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The article is well written with clear and concise prose. If any improvements are required, they are minor. No grammatical errors or misspellings found.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The article complies with all MoS guidelines required by GA criteria.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	The relevant guidelines are followed.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	All in-line citations are from reliable sources. All content that is likely to be challenged is sufficiently supported by in-line citations.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No such problem is detected in the article.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No copyright violations or plagiarism found in the article. The automated check confirms this for the sources found online and for other websites. Some references could not be processed because I could not access them however I find a violation highly unlikely.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The article addresses the main aspects of the topic adequately. Further expansions may be made later if required or possible. However the article meets GA requirements regarding this.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	The article is not affected by edit wars.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All images are appropriately tagged with their copyright status. The article contains no non-free content, so no fair use rationales are required.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	All images are relevant to the topic with suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	The article meets the minimum requirements for GA status and is therefore promoted. I believe that a peer review would be beneficial in order to receive further options on how it could be improved further.

comments

• File:HMS Erebus and Terror in the Antarctic by John Wilson Carmichael.jpg requires USA pd tag.

Done.

• Please check whether a USA pd tag is applicable for File:James Clark Ross.jpg, File:Erebus image.jpg and add it.

Done.

• Please add a pd tag (outside USA) for File:Flora Antarctica Plate CXXIV.jpg

Done.

• Question: Can the term "unusually strong warships" be somehow supported??

Ref added. They were exceptionally robust.

• "...was assistant-surgeon to Robert McCormick. and was responsible for collecting zoological and geological specimens.": I think the "was" at "was responsible for" should be omitted.

Done.

• "Thomas Abernethy, who had been previous Arctic expeditions with Ross": Could you please rephrase it or add a preposition? I am proposing it because the current syntax reafd like "Thomas Abernethy is expedition" or so.

Done.

• "It was throughout "splendidly" illustrated by Walter Hood Fitch": I don't know whether including "splendidly",is a good idea.

Whyever not? It is a most unusual and distinctive comment, quoted from the named source, not from me. I've repeated the ref for clarity.

No problem then, excuse me for the misunderstanding.

• Regarding influence section, could you please improve the second section? I think it requires some copyediting. Also, I fail to understand the section's purpose. (not saying that it should not exist, just that I did not yet understand it.)

I've just read it through and I'm happy with it. The Flora is arguably (as Walton notes) the major product of the expedition, and as such it deserves a mention here.

On the section's purpose, it's to show how important (WikiJargon alert: Notable) the expedition was. Of course that gives us a platform to provide some interesting quotations.

Ok, it stays as is. I am a bit skeptical about the section's name, however I cannot think anything better right now and it can be discussed later on, at talk page as it won't affect the review.

Thanks. It could be named 'Legacy' or some such.