Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Southern Cross Expedition

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 23:47, 25 September 2008 [1].

---

Southern Cross Expedition

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk)

Britain's Antarctic exploration ventures didn't start with the glamour of Scott and Shackleton, but with a largely forgotten expedition led by a half-Norwegian with an unpronounceable name. This is an account of that expedition, in the footsteps of which all the recognised polar heroes followed. The article has been peer reviewed, improved, and I think is now ready. Thanks, Brianboulton (talk) 16:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Pointless supportWell now I can't do this :( due to mildly interesting nomination statement. Image comments -
  • Don't think it should say "Sledge dogs" for the caption, should it?
    • Maybe not. Words deleted. Brianboulton (talk) 21:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
  • All images free (PD-expired copyright, licensed, etc.) and have proper license/author/source info.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• • • Thank you. I'm not sure if you're supporting the article or just the nomination statement or both or neither, but I'm grateful anyway. Brianboulton (talk) 22:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment

• There's something not quite right about this sentence. In January 1900 Southern Cross took the party southward to explore the Ross Sea and, following in the footseps of James Clark Ross in 1840, reached the Great Ice Barrier. It makes the boat sound like a person. Do boats follow footsteps?
  • Poor choice of wording, now amended. ("following the route taken by Ross")
• No comma needed here I think. attempting to gain financial backing, in Australia and England , or here National Antarctic Expedition,[9] and was in search of funds; or here Newfoundland Sealing Company, and was lost with all hands in a storm . Suggest you look for more of these.
  • I'm not totally sure about the commas - in some cases, where the sentence meaning isn't in doubt, it's a matter of choice whether to use them or not. I've deleted in the case of your first two examples and left the comma in the third, with a slight rewording. Brianboulton (talk) 22:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• five were Norwegians, two were Englishmen, one was Australian . Should this be just English.
  • Yes, & now is. Brianboulton (talk) 22:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• leaving a wife and baby daughter born after he left for the Antarctic, what, both of them?
  • "also a" inserted after "and" Brianboulton (talk) 22:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Is this right? Markham's persisted in his attacks on Borchgrevink.
  • Sorry, that's my poor proofreading. Brianboulton (talk) 22:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Great article though and a good story. Fainites ^barley 21:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for your helpful comments. Brianboulton (talk) 22:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Support. Looking excellent now after all the reviews below. I took the liberty of removing a couple of commas if thats OK. Fainites ^barley 21:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Support I peer reviewed this and am glad to see the few quibbles raised there have been addressed. Interesting and well written, meets all FA criteria. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look good. I couldn't check links because the link tool is down! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments on the lead.

• "Over-winter" is written without a hyphen, I believe.
  • I've dropped the hyphens
• "its pre-emption of the role envisaged for the National Antarctic (Discovery) Expedition being resented by London's geographical establishment." - usually I don't have much against passive voice, but here, it makes the sentence hard to understand.
  • I've rewritten the sentence for clarity.
• "Borchgrevink was never awarded the heroic status of Scott and Shackleton, and his expedition was soon forgotten in the excitement of later events." - This sentence offers a contrast to the previous sentence, so a "however" or similar word would probably make the prose flow better, though I notice that adding "however" would create three sentences beginning with "however" in a row. Perhaps the two sentences surrounding this one (the "firsts" one and the one on Amundsen could be merged, since they both pronounce the importance of the expedition.
  • Again, I've found a way of rephrasing, which I think answers your principal concern. I don't want to merge the two sentences you refer to, partly because of the ensuing sentence length and complexity, and also because I want the Amundsen quote to be a resounding ending to the lead.

I made some minor changes in the first section as well. Nousernamesleft (talk) 21:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comments & also for the minor improvements in Background. Brianboulton (talk) 00:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Support as of this verion Comments based on this version — Jappalang
Lead

• "took ill"

  Sounds archaic... "fell ill" perhaps? Agreed Brianboulton (talk) 13:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• "the limited amounts of scientific information obtained"

  I am uncertain, is it "amounts of information" or "amount of information"?

  I'm not sure either, but as information was gathered across several discplines, perhaps "amounts" is better. Brianboulton (talk) 13:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

  I can accept it (since we are both iffy over it). I will, however, leave this issue here as open (but consider it resolved) for others to enlighten us. Jappalang (talk) 22:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• "However, among the expedition's notable Antarctic "firsts" were: first to over-winter on the continent, first man-made structures on the mainland, first use of dogs, first sledge journeys, first ascent of the Great Ice Barrier, and the new Farthest South record."

  I suggest rephrasing it as "The expedition, however, had several notable achievements of being the first to accomplish the following in the Antartic: over-winter on the continent, establish man-made structures on the mainland, use of dogs and sledges, and ascend the Great Ice Barrier. It had also set a new Farthest South record."

  I have rephrased in aslightly different way from your suggestion, but I think it's OK now. Brianboulton (talk) 13:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• "Borchgrevink was never awarded the heroic status of Scott and Shackleton,"

  It sounds a bit weird to me, as if Scott and Shackleton were heroic awards that should be given out... Maybe "Borchgrevink was never awarded heroic status equal to Scott and Shackleton," or "Unlike Scott and Shackleton, Borchgrevink was never accorded any heroic status,"? Agreed and done. Brianboulton (talk) 13:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• "Borchgrevink's Barrier inlet"

  Is this a place name (hence, a proper noun), or an informal name for the spot where Borchgrevink made his assault on the Great Ice Barrier (which in that case, it would be preferable to explain in layman terms)?

  As far as I know, Borchgrevink didn't formally name the inlet where he landed. Inlets in ice walls are impermanent features due to calving and other weather factors, so it probably didn't occur to him to give it a name. That's why I said that Amundsen used the location of the inlet, which by 1910 had expanded to form a considerable bay. To avoid lengthy explanantion in the text, I've dropped "inlet" and referred to the location of Borchgrvink's Barrier landing.

Background

• Image:Newnes-Spy-1894.jpg

  Is this a fair and accurate depiction of Sir Newnes (after all, it is a cartoon and might be a caricature carrying some perceived aspects)? Are there any better portraits of him?

  Not that I can find and be sure of authorship, publication dates etc. The drawing is the work of the famous Victorian cartoonist "Spy", aka Sir Leslie Ward, and it was considered an honour to be drawn by him. The cartoon first appeared in Vanity Fair, which was one of Newnes's own magazines, so Newnes can't have been offended by it. I actually think it rather charming. Brianboulton (talk) 13:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• "becoming possibly the first men to set foot on the Antarctic continent—if the 1821 claim of American sealer John Davis is discounted."

  Drop the "possibly". The statement following after the dash sets the tone for the possible exclusion of claim. Agreed Brianboulton (talk) 13:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• "with its huge penguin rookery providing a ready supply of fresh food and fuel"

  How do penguins provide fuel? Guano (which is not neccesary used for fuel, but for nitrate production)? Blubber? Neither source at the end of the sentence in this statement shows their use as fuel, only as meat (as dog food even). The fuel usage is later sourced in Cape Adare subsection to Preston, p. 14, but still fails to explain how penguins are a fuel source.

  Ref [7] at the end of the above sentence is to Preston pp. 14-16, which mentions penguins as sources of food and fuel. I think it's beyond the scope of the article to discuss exactly how penguin blubber was used as fuel, but I'll change the "fuel" to "blubber" if you think that would be better. Brianboulton (talk) 13:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

  I found these[2][3][4] on Google books. Basically, penguin skins (with blubber) are boiled in try pots to produce penguin oil. The issue may be more pertinent for penguin articles, so I think its exclusion should not hurt this article and strike it off. (It might not hurt to add a short "gathered by boiling its blubber", if it fits, in the article though.) Jappalang (talk) 22:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• "rival for any possible offers of funds."

  How about "rival for funding." Agreed Brianboulton (talk) 13:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• "even though only two of the ten-man shore party, and none of the ship's company, were British."

  The general tone of "only two and none" reads a bit funny, how about "even though no British people were in his expedition except for two men of the shore party."

  Sorry, but I find your suggested wording even odder than my original, so I've simplified to "even though only two of the entire expedition party were British". Brianboulton (talk) 13:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• "saying that it was a reproach to human enterprise that there were parts of the earth that man had never attempted to reach"

  There are three "that"s in one clause... Is there any way to rephrase this (or perhaps use a partial quote)?

  I've attempted to sort this out - see what you think. Brianboulton (talk) 13:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Expedition objectives

• "The team of scientists that was eventually appointed"

  The passive tone suddenly alerted me to something. Who appointed the team members? Did Borchgrevink select them, or was it some panel that selected them for him?

  The precise means of appointment aren't given in the sources, but as it was a private expedition it an safely be assumed that Borchgrevink appointed, or approved the appointment, of all the personnel. I've adjusted the text. Brianboulton (talk) 13:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Ship

• "legendary Norwegian shipbuilder Colin Archer"

  Archer is not accorded any status equivalent to "legendary" in the source. OK, description deleted. Brianboulton (talk) 13:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• "She was sold to the Newfoundland Sealing Company, later being lost with all hands in a storm off the Newfoundland coast, in April 1914."

  How about "She was sold to the Newfoundland Sealing Company in April 1914, and was later lost with all hands in a storm off the Newfoundland coast."?

  I think some misplaced commas distorted the meaning in my original version, and I have rearranged the sentence for clarity.

Personnel

• "a cook/general assistant"

  Per WP:SLASH, unless it is a quote, slashes are discouraged, so perhaps "a cook who doubled as a general assistant" or "a cook who was also a general assistant"? Agreed. Brianboulton (talk) 13:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• "The others were Anton Fougner, scientific assistant and general handyman, Kolbein Ellifsen, cook and general assistant, and the two Sami dog-handlers, Per Savio and Ole Must."

  Would it be better to use semi-colons to delineate them? "The others were Anton Fougner, scientific assistant and general handyman; Kolbein Ellifsen, cook and general assistant; and the two Sami dog-handlers, Per Savio and Ole Must." Agreed. Brianboulton (talk) 13:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Cape Adare

• Image:Borchgrevink Hut.jpg

  Mayhaps rewrite the caption to "Borchgrevink Hut, Cape Adare, whose sturdiness were seemingly less than impressive as described by one of the expedition members, Bernacchi"

  I've extended the caption, but used Bernacchi's own words rather than an interpretation of them. Brianboulton (talk) 13:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• "As well as the ship's and shore parties, she carried Siberian sledge dogs"

  The ship's what? I presume the intention was "Aside from carrying the provisions for both ship and shore party, she carried Siberian sledge dogs"?

  I have reworded this sentence.Brianboulton (talk) 13:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Antartic winter

• Image:Drawing in Carstens Borchgrevink hut c.jpg

  Its caption seems a bit weak. Perhaps "Drawing by Kolbein Ellefsen, the expedition's cook, on the wall of the Cape Adare hut, above his bed to pass the time in the Antartic winter" to emphasize its relevance to the sub-section?

  Caption extended. Brianboulton (talk) 13:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Ross Sea exploration

• "following the Victoria Land coast, discovering further islands,"

  "following the Victoria Land coast and discovering further islands,"? Agreed. Brianboulton (talk) 13:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Aftermath

• "Although, as Hugh Robert Mill pointed out, the scientific results were not as great as expected, and were depleted by the unexplained loss of many of Hanson's natural history notes, there were important findings."

  What is with the "there were important findings" dangling at the end, after a clase that was connected with "and"?

  I'm not sure what the grammar point is that's being raised here. The "important findings" are listed in the following sentence. It seems pretty clear to me, but if you can suggest a better wording I'll be happy to oblige. Brianboulton (talk) 13:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

  I sort of read it as "Although, as Hugh Robert Mill pointed out, the scientific results were not as great as expected, and were depleted by the unexplained loss of many of Hanson's natural history notes...", a seemingly perfect sentence, and encountered the "there were important findings" as an add-on. I presume the intention was "Although, (source of info), the scientific results were not as great as expected, (additional info), there were important findings." Instead I found myself distracted by the ", and" and ignored the "Although" at the start, thereby reading a different structure. How about "Hugh Robert Mill pointed out that the unexplained loss of many of Hanson's natural history notes contributed in part to the failure of the scientific results to meet expectations. He also said that the lack of great discoveries did not prevent the expedition from producing impressive work."? Jappalang (talk) 22:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

  That wording is fine, but it is moving a little too far from what Mill actually said, which was: "While the scientific results of the expedition were not so great as expected, many of Hanson's notes having mysteriously disappeared, the expedition was interesting as a dashing piece of scientific work". I had rather freely paraphrased the last bit. My feeling now is that we should perhaps revert to Mill's wording, and that is what I have done. I think it works OK - please take a lok. Brianboulton (talk) 10:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• "A belated recognition came in 1930, long after Markham's death, when the Royal Geographical Society, presenting Borchgrevink with its Patron's Medal, finally admitted that "justice had not been done at the time to the pioneer work of the Southern Cross expedition", and that the magnitude of the difficulties it had overcome had previously been underestimated."

  I find this sentence a tad long and hard to read. Could it be broken down into simpler forms?

  Done - I've divided the sentence into two. Brianboulton (talk) 13:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Overall the article looks good. It lacks a bit of impact, but that could be how unremarkable the journey seems to be (perhaps it had suffered by not having hype poured on it from the media. Blame Markham, I guess...) Quite a good shape for an FA once some tweaks are made. Jappalang (talk) 01:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for your very careful reading, and for indicating numerous ways of bettering the article, most of which I have been happy to adopt. Brianboulton (talk) 13:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• With the latest changes, the article is in pretty good shape to be featured. I think the article is both comprehensive and illustrative in informing readers of an overlooked achievement in exploration. Jappalang (talk) 02:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Support

• Pickyness, but in the lead, you might give a year for the Scott and Shackleton expeditions, just to give a bit more chronology for folks. Something like "... expeditions of Robert Falcon Scott in (year) and Ernest Shackleton in (year)."
  • Well, Scott led two expeditions and Shackleton three, so we could be a bit cluttered with dates. Could I just say something like "in the following decade"? Or just leave it as it is?
    • That works too. It's the historian in me that wants that chronology thing...Ealdgyth - Talk 00:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
• Might give a bit more context on the Fram's drift? NOthing big, but a phrase connecting it to an expedition or person would be helpful.
  • Yes, good idea, will do.
• Okay, what did they do to the dogs? (grins)
  • Umm....
    • ARGH! Ealdgyth - Talk 00:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

All joking aside, great work Brian. Happy to support. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Brianboulton (talk) 00:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Support nice work, surely it's an FA. Dincher (talk) 10:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Support I made a few nitpicky copyedit tweaks, and left one question in a hidden comment. Well done, as always. Maralia (talk) 06:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.