Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Discovery 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 00:44, 17 March 2008.

Discovery Expedition

 * previous FAC (23:25, 7 March 2008)

I am renominating this article because the single opposer from its previous candidature is satisfied that all issues raised have been satisfactorily addressed and is now prepared to support. A copyedit has also been completed. Brianboulton (talk) 11:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Support. Another fine article from the main editor of Terra Nova Expedition.  I went through and copyedited but found little to fix.  Mike Christie (talk) 11:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - but sources and further reading is the same thing, they are however books. MOJSKA   666  (msg) 12:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * To me, Sources are books etc that I have actually used in compiling the articles and to which there is at least one citation in the text. Further reading is other general books on the topic which I have not cited as sources. That's why I've divided them. Brianboulton (talk) 17:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That is correct. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments:
 * "Some polar chroniclers date the Scott–Shackleton antipathy from this point" Did I miss something? Was the anitpathy mentioned previously?
 * Perhaps I should have said "the later Scott-Shackleton antipathy". Will edit accordingly. Brianboulton (talk) 17:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I found a book review of 'Diary of the "Discovery" Expedition to the Antarctic Regions, 1901-1904' by Edward Wilson, which includes a nice image a page from Wilson's diary from 9 January 1902. I assume there are no copyright issues. Could screen-capture if desired. Am still looking in JSTOR for more stuff, and still looking at the article. Ling.Nut (talk) 14:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * See your talkpage concerning this Brianboulton (talk) 17:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "After its return home it was celebrated as a success, despite the need for an expensive relief mission to free Discovery from the ice...". When I first read this, I automatically assumed the relief mission occured after the return... thinking that the presumably empty ship was somehow valuable enough to warrant that action. Ling.Nut (talk) 15:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the text eventually makes it clear that Discovery did sail for home, but I see what you mean. Perhaps "...despite having needed an expensive etc..." will clarify? Brianboulton (talk) 17:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * yes. Plus add "and its crew" ;-). Ling.Nut (talk) 23:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Added Brianboulton (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Support - as the previous opposer mentioned above, all my concerns have been addressed and I'm happy to support. Ealdgyth | Talk 15:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Another fine article, and since I was upbraided by Sandy for missing the last FAC I'd better support now. Couple of minor points:
 * The "later Scott–Shackleton antipathy" isn't proven is it? They were rivals in the race to the pole, but apart from the hearsay and gossip-mongering there's no actual evidence of bad blood even at that point is there?
 * Oh, yes. Scott extracted a promise from Shackleton that his Nimrod expedition 1907–1909 would avoid McMurdo Sound, which Scott considered his own field of work. Circumstances forced Shackleton to break this promise. On Shackleton's return, Scott preserved the public civilities, but his private letters to the RGS show his real feelings. Scott's greatest supporter Edward Wilson never spoke to Shackleton again, and Scott's Terra Nova diaries contain various caustic and unfriendly references to Shackleton.  They weren't buddies any more!Brianboulton (talk) 12:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Wild's total of five exceeding that of anybody else - does that still stand?
 * No, I meant more than anyone during the Heroic Age & have altered accordingly. Brianboulton (talk) 12:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yomangani talk 00:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Support I've dropped the ending full stops on footnotes 63 ("Lashly's recorded comment") and 88 ("Shackleton's performance convinced Scott") as it appears you meant to, in line with the others we discussed above. Congrats on an excellent article, and thank you for being so receptive to my nitpicking. Maralia (talk) 19:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Question: I've seen stuff recently in the news about various countries wanting to claim various sections of Antarctica. I wonder if a sentence or two in the "Some consequences" section explaing how (if at all) this expedition has impacted that controversy (and who can claim what) might be relevant? Ling.Nut (talk) 13:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's an interesting subject, but I don't think that issues relating to territorial claims in the Antarctica continent can really be considered as consequences of the Discovery Expedition. They arose many years and many expeditions later, and I believe that the question properly belongs to a different article. Brianboulton (talk) 16:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Support. That was my last reservation: I was wondering if some modern consequences had been overlooked. Good job on an excellent article! Ling.Nut (talk) 00:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


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