Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Carsten Borchgrevink


 * 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 Raul654 19:14, 10 February 2009.

Carsten Borchgrevink

 * Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk)

After a long PR and several facelifts, I think it's ready. Borchgrevink is an unsung hero of polar exploration. Nobody liked him much; he was pushy, lacked charm, got people's backs up. Yet he was a true pioneer, with a string of Antarctic firsts. In his clumsy way he opened doors that more celebrated figures like Scott and Amundsen later passed through, to win eternal fame and glory for themselves, though hardly anyone has heard of Bochgrevink. So, here's the chance to find out about him and draw your own conclusions. Thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 00:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Image review: all images check out fine, in the public domain, verifiable with provided information. Jappalang (talk) 01:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Support. I read the article and found no serious problems. However I noticed some roughness in prose at some places, so minor copy-edit may be necessary. Ruslik (talk) 08:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support. I have fixed odd glitches in the prose, will keep looking. Brianboulton (talk) 09:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Both Mill and Rubin are missing from your references. Jenk is in the references, but not the article. Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 12:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Jenks is in the article, ref [17]. I had used a different citation format, now corrected. Don't know how Mill and Rubin got missed off the sources list, but they're there now. Thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 12:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments -
 * What makes the following reliable sources?
 * http://www.usgennet.org/usa/ca/state1/sfhorror/sf23.html
 * USGenNet is a host. The source is an e-book hosted by USGenNet. The correct details of the book are noe shown - see "Fellows, Rev. Samuel (Introduction)..." etc Brianboulton (talk) 18:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * My problem is with usgennet, are they affiliated with usgenweb? I'm more concerned with whether the scanning/hosting/etc was well done and that there are no errors. With Google, you can see the scans, so it helps reassure you that it's been done well. When it's transcribed, you begin to worry more about reliablity. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know if usgennet are connected with usgenweb; they don't refer to each other on their homepages. USGenNet seems a big organisation – its ebook index page lists large numbers of books, it is obviously a considerable concern. I can't judge whether they are competent or not; if I was using them for critical or controversial details, this might be an issue. But the information from their ebook is straightforward readily available elsewhere – here, for instance. This is a San Diego State University site dealing with volcanic eruptions. Or, there is a good article in my 1930 Encyclopaedia Britannica which gives the same information. I'll be guided; if you think I should switch, or double reference, I'll be pleased to do so. Brianboulton (talk) 23:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably double ref with the San Diego site? Just to be safe when you hit the main page. I'll go ahead and mark this resolved. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, doubled as suggested. Brianboulton (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The McConville ref is a journal article, correct? You need to format it with cite journal then, not cite web.
 * Done. Brianboulton (talk) 18:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd integrate all the no author refs into the alphabetical order with the rest, alphabetize by the title.
 * I usually keep them separate, but I've done as you suggest. Brianboulton (talk) 18:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If you feel strongly about keeping them separate, go back to your normal style, I just prefer total alphabetical myself. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Nah, try it this way. Brianboulton (talk) 23:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Use cite news for the two New York Times refs, and make sure you put the New York Times in the work field, not publisher, so that the newspaper title is italicised.
 * Done for both. Brianboulton (talk) 18:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Support with comments  I peer reviewed this and just reread it and find it meets the FA criteria. I found a few rough spots, as follows:
 * Lead - is the second comma needed in this: Borchgrevink's colleagues were critical of his leadership, and his own accounts of the expedition, were regarded as journalistic and unreliable.
 * Comma deleted
 * Seeking support - mising words? wrong word order? in "associated with naval the Arctic" in this: ... the RGS project was envisaged as not merely a scientific endeavour, but as an attempt to relive the glories associated with naval the Arctic and Antarctic exploration of half a century earlier.[16]
 * Sentence reworded - there were other awkwardnesses, which I think I have fixed now.
 * Retirement - would this sentence better split into two (full stop after born)?  In September 1896 he had married an English bride, Constance Prior Standen, with whom he settled in Slemdal, near Oslo, where two sons and two daughters were born, and where Borchgrevink devoted himself to sporting and literary activities, producing a book entitled The Game of Norway.[10][39]
 * Sentence split.

Well done, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestions & support. Brianboulton (talk) 09:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You are very welcome. I struck my comments to make it clear that all my concerns have been addressed now. Thanks for yet another interesting read on Antarctic exploration. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 18:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - Generally, I think the article is very nice; it has an excellent flow to it. Anyway, even at PR didn't need many changes, it's practically perfect, in every way. Ceran  →// forge 12:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Support I peer-reviewed the article earlier and thought it was FA-worthy, and I haven't changed my mind. I re-read the article just now, changing four commas but finding nothing else to fix or suggest. I particularly like the recent addition of the Great Southern Barrier drawing, which I find more evocative of historic conditions than an ice snapshot taken from a contemporary vessel. Finetooth (talk) 18:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


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