Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Farthest South


 * 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 01:43, 4 October 2008.

Farthest South

 * Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk)

This is a departure from my normal menu of expedition histories and explorer biogs - a general account of the convergence on the South Pole from the sixteenth century to Amundsen's 1911 conquest. It may seem at times a bit like an extended school geography lesson, but I think it's more interesting than that. The article has been through GA and PR, and has been extended and improved since then, so I hope it's of FA quality now. Brianboulton (talk) 11:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

–Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  13:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC) -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 15:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments Wikipedia seems to have quite the coverage of the South Pole. Very interesting articles, indeed. :-)
 * "To quite the coverage?" Something missing? Brianboulton (talk) 00:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, whoops. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  00:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What makes http://www.mundoandino.com/ a reliable source?
 * This is a very large site which provides exhaustive information about South America, its islands, mountains etc. I have only really looked in detail at the Diego Ramirez page, where the information seems to be spot-on accurate from what I know from other sources, and very thoroughly and professionally displayed. Brianboulton (talk) 00:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, since the information is available in other sources, do you think you could replace it with those? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  00:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I can find nothing in or about mundoandino.com that indicates anything to make it a reliable source. See Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, the more I look into it, this: Enjoy! Your amigos of MundoAndino.com. at the bottom of the page doesn't bode well for reliability. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  01:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I've changed the source to Knox-Johnston. The MondoAndino site was essentially for travellers, but it did have some interesting information in it. However,I've transferred it to external lnks.Brianboulton (talk) 09:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Is http://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_history/tutor/eurvoya/magellan.html reliable?
 * Well, it was prepared by the Applied History Research Group at the University of Calgary. It apears to be factually accurate, and I've no reason to doubt its reliability.Brianboulton (talk) 00:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Works for me. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  00:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Student Temporary Employment Program (STEP), from a Royal Bank of Canada Teaching Development Grant (TDO) ?? Reliable?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Where is that? Did I miss that in the article? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  02:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sandy, what is it about STEP involvement that casts doubt on the reliablity of the source? Or is it the Bank of Canada you are questioning? The reliability of a source depends, surely, on how and by whom the material was prepared. This site was prepared by a reputable University department, and is supported by a lengthy bibliography. I'd replace it if there were convincing reasons for suspecting it, but at present I don't see them. Brianboulton (talk) 09:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If we click on "Home" from the source and follow up by clicking on "The Applied History Research Group" link, we are brought to http://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_history/tutor/. I think we can rely on the information on that page to believe that the tutorials are reliable. Quote: "Given the inter-disciplinary nature of these tutorials, committees were formed to guide their content, design, and production. The steering committees are made up of subject experts from applicable departments and faculties at the University of Calgary, Red Deer College, and Mount Royal College .  History students at the senior undergraduate honours level and graduate level make up the project teams and are responsible for the research, the narrative, and the web design for each of these tutorials. "  Students might be the authors, but they are edited by professors of the relevant fields.   Jappalang (talk) 08:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Otherwise sources look good.
 * Well I think it's an extended school geography lesson :P Image comments:
 * Image:Magellan 1810 engraving.jpg appears to have some vandalism/inappropriate cmts on the image page.
 * Image:James Clark Ross.jpg has duplicate headings.
 * All images have proper dates/licenses/authors, et al, but the image description pages are absolute messes. It would be nice if there were all formatted using templates and proper headings.

Comments—There are elements of beauty in the writing, but it does need fixing here and there. Someone else, very good, needs to go through it very critically. I almost wrote "Support", but I'd like to come back in a while and re-evaluate. It's very promising. PS These are examples from the lead alone. Tony  (talk)  15:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for those kind words. Brianboulton (talk) 00:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Why the laboured title? Needs to be more explicit so that search words will locate it. Why the initial caps when it appears in the main text?
 * I'm surprised you think a two-word title is "laboured". I could call the article "Convergence on the South Pole", but that would be laboured. Or is it the parenthetical addition you don't like? As to the capitalisation, Farthest South as a concept is frequently capitalised in polar literature, and equally frequently not. To me the term lacks some impact when not capitalised. It's a question of preference, but I accept there are other views. Brianboulton (talk) 00:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Rather than the sexist language, why not "reach by explorers"? There's another instance, "men", shortly after. Not necessary, and rather exclusionary nowadays.
 * Remiss of me to retain the sexist language. Both have been changed. Brianboulton (talk) 00:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "Belief in this land persisted well into the 18th century"—Surely the 19th century (you've already mentioned 1773, so I'm confused; belief in the existence of this land"?
 * "the existence of" is good, and I've incorporated this. Belief in the existence of a fertile southern land persisted into the 18th century until knocked on the head by Captain Cook. Thereafter, although belief in the land continued to exist, they knew it would be barren. I have clarified this in the text.
 * You give years for Cook's voyages (twice), but leave us in the dark for Weddell's and Ross's: "in the early 19th century"? (I'm guessing.)
 * You guess (more or less) correctly - first half of 19th century, now included in the text. Brianboulton (talk) 00:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, why R and P?
 * Less justification for these, so I've removed them. Brianboulton (talk) 00:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "the honour of first achieving the ultimate Farthest South, by reaching the South Pole itself, fell to the Norwegian, Roald Amundsen, in December 1911"—No; this sounds as though he was somehow appointed to do it first. Reword. Tony   (talk)  15:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * (last point) Reworded.Brianboulton (talk) 00:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I am arranging for someone is going to go through the text, as you suggest. Thank you for your comments. Brianboulton (talk) 00:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Support (from Ruhrfisch). I have read this and feel it meets all the FA criteria, as it is well written, has sound references and excellent images. My quibbles follow but are ideas / suggestions, and not actionable requests (except for the full stop):
 * First caption - The Amundsen-Scott South Polar Station is shown in the background, across a field of ridged frozen ice, or "sastrugi" this is a complete sentence and needs a full stop. Also isn't all ice "frozen"? Is the word "frozen" really needed?
 * Agreed both points. Also I've wikilinked sastrugi.
 * Would it make sense to include the fact that the South Pole is at 90 degrees south early on? Also in the "Other discoveries" section, would it make sense to give the degrees south for each of these places - most people will not be familiar with how far south the Falklands or South Georgia are? This might also be useful for some other locations described that are not new records.
 * To the first point, yes. To the second, I'm not so sure. This article is about the convergence on the South Pole, not, basically, about the general discoveries of land in southern latitudes, of which those mentioned in the article are just a few examples, to provide some historical continuity. To put extra information in on these marginal areas might smack of the "extended geography lesson" (see comments at top) which I am anxious to avoid.
 * Would it make sense to briefly mention the subsequent activities at the South Pole - the establishment of the base there, etc? Perhaps a brief "Legacy" section?
 * Excellent idea - why didn't I think of that? It will be done.
 * The new section looks fine, I agree it should not be much longer. WOuld it make sense to add that the station was built and is now supplied by materials brought in by air? Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 15:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Would a map of Antarctica and nearby land masses, perhaps with numbered dots to show the various Farthest South records, be useful next to the table of records?
 * I'd certainly consider this, but I would need help with the map-making. It could take a while.
 * I made a quick base map here Image:Antarctic farthest south map.png - would something like this work? If so we can discuss it on my talk page or the article's talk page. If not, I will delete the map. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 13:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I will discuss on your talkpage Brianboulton (talk) 14:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well done overall and congratulations on a very interesting article, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your helpful comments, much appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 09:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Support - I have scrutinised every sentence of this fascinating article. I have made a few edits, but if I have introduced any errors please, please revert them. (I am not as gifted as Tony). Brian has a beautiful writing style; where others tend to write in absolute past tenses, Brian brings life to his prose and allows the reader to re-live the adventures. I fully support this article's FA candidature. Graham Colm Talk 19:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That is most generous - thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 20:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Support - I just gave this a thorough copyedit. I left one hidden comment on a very minor issue. This is well written and engaging; a featured topic just waiting to happen. Maralia (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you Maralia. I picked up the hidden comment re Puerto San Julian & dealt with it. Brianboulton (talk) 22:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Support as of this version Comments on this version &mdash; Jappalang Lead
 * "After such routes had been established and the main geographical features of the earth had been broadly mapped, the lure for mercantile adventurers was the great fertile continent which, according to myth, lay hidden in the south."
 * Should "south" be capitalised here?
 * I tend to capitalise "south" when it is a specific reference, as in "Deep South", or "Farthest South", but not when it is a general direction. Brianboulton (talk) 08:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * "despite occasional glimpses of what polar historian Roland Huntford describes as "the baleful truth", in the form of the icy and inhospitable islands that were discovered in the waters of Southern Ocean."
 * If these "occasional glimpses" were the discoveries, then would "that were discovered" be redundant? The phrase "waters of" might be redundant as well, considering we are talking about islands and an ocean (although the phrasing sounds nice).
 * You are right on both counts: you cannot "discover" glimpses, and oceans are made of water. A case of over-enthusiastic phrase-making, I fear. I have removed the redundancies. Brianboulton (talk) 08:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Second thoughts! Perhaps a moot point, but it was actually Huntford's "baleful truth" that was occasionally glimpsed. This truth was manifested by the discoveries of islands. With this in mind I have partially restored my original wording, but please feel free to comment further if you think it necessary. Brianboulton (talk) 12:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... so what you mean is that people believed in Terra Australis despite occasional glimpses of Huntford's "baleful truth", which is later backed up (proven) by the discoveries? In that case, "the baleful truth" needs clarification.  I presume "the baleful truth" is that there is no temperate or tropical fertile land at the farthest south, and the "glimpses" were of the evidence to this truth.  Could we go with "Belief in the existence of this land of plenty persisted well into the 18th century, people were reluctant to believe what polar historian Roland Huntford later described as "the baleful truth"&mdash;a cold, harsh environment in the south whose existence was borne out by the discoveries of icy and inhospitable islands in the Southern Ocean."? Jappalang (talk) 13:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have put the two versions - yours and mine - side by side, and quite honestly, to me either is acceptable. However, I like your reference to "a cold, harsh environment", so I'm going for your amendment, very slightly modified.Brianboulton (talk) 20:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * "After the first confirmed landing on continental Antarctica was finally achieved, in the late 19th century, the quest for Farthest South latitudes became, in effect, the "race for the pole"."
 * Does "After the first confirmed landing on continental Antarctica in the late 19th century, the quest for Farthest South latitudes became, in effect, the "race for the pole"." read better?
 * Yes, smoother.


 * "However, the first ultimate Farthest South, the South Pole itself at 90°S, was achieved by the Norwegian, Roald Amundsen, in December 1911."
 * Somehow, I think there is no other ultimate Farthest Souths, right (there is no more south than 90°S)? Hence, there could not be a first ultimate, but only the ultimate; so, "However, the first man to reach the ultimate Farthest South, the South Pole itself at 90°S, was the Norwegian, Roald Amundsen, in December 1911."
 * I made a somewhat hamfisted attempt to change this sentence in response to an earlier review comment. Your version is more elegant, and I'll use it. Thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 12:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Early voyagers
 * "The early voyagers of the 16th and 17th centuries were not seeking high southern latitudes, but the expansion of trade routes."
 * Although the lead does introduce the article, it is a summary. I sort of feel that the first section should introduce the reader to the greater text.  Something just did not click for me on reading this opening sentence.  I would think of something like "In the 16th and 17th centuries, voyagers were seeking to expand trade routes and looked for various routes to shorten the travel time or new trading grounds.  Knowing that the seas to the North are filled with ice, they viewed the unexplored South as a possible venue of new routes."  By the way what are "high southern latitudes"?
 * I agree that the intro to this section was rather weakly worded, and I have strengthened it, though not quite in the way you suggested. I think it important to mention that Spanish-Portuguese maritime rivalry was the chief factor that precipitated the search for a SW route to the Pacific, and I'd rather not draw in the ice-filled waters of the north. I'm not sure at what point people realised that the waters of the north were filled with ice - Frobisher's voyages were 50 years after Magellan - and I don't want to lose the focus of this article. Tell me if you think the revised intro is stong enough. "High southern latitudes" means latitudes tending towards 90°, but the phrase no longer appears in the text.Brianboulton (talk) 14:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That is an excellent introduction. I do have to clarify that my suggestion did not exclude the mention of the Spaniard-Portugeuse rivalry (it would have your original mention of them as follow-on sentences).  Your change is much better.  Jappalang (talk) 02:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Ferdinand Magellan
 * "Because little if anything ..."
 * I think we are generally advised against starting sentences with the "Because" conjunction...
 * Fixed Brianboulton (talk) 14:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * "Here Magellan found a deep inlet which, on investigation, proved to be the strait he was seeking, later to be known by his name."
 * Could we work in a link to Straits of Magellan in there?
 * Fixed Brianboulton (talk) 14:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The end of this paragraph is a bit abrupt when considering the subsequent sub-sections. Perhaps a "His discovery of this south passage round the continent encouraged other expeditions to explore this route." or such statement to connect the sub-sections?
 * I'm not too sure about this. His discovery was of a passage through, not round the continent, and was accepted for 50+ years as the only route to the Pacific (Hoces's accidental "discovery" notwithstanding). Investigation of the Drake Passage really only began with the Nodal brothers, 90 years after Magellan. Brianboulton (talk) 14:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, on re-reading, the flow was fine. My initial reaction was overly-critical.  Jappalang (talk) 02:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Francisco de Hoces
 * Drake needs to be introduced rather than just named "Drake" here. "British privateer Sir Francis Drake" can set up the context for why he would plunder, not explore, in the next sub-section.
 * Fixed Brianboulton (talk) 14:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Sir Francis Drake
 * "Following Magellan's route, Drake reached Port St Julian on 20 June, where he stayed for nearly two months before sailing south, with his fleet now reduced to three ships and a small pinnace."
 * Would breaking it up into "Following Magellan's route, Drake reached Port St Julian on 20 June. Harbouring for nearly two months, Drake left the port with a reduced fleet of three ships and a small pinnace." work?
 * Fixed - except I don't like "harbouring" in this context so I've slightly reworded. Brianboulton (talk) 14:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * "driven far to westward and southward"
 * I am not certain "to ...ward" is sound. Am I right to say it is more customary to hear "driven far west- and southward" or "driven far to the west and south"?
 * Fixed (your latter suggestion) Brianboulton (talk) 14:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Garcia de Nodal expedition
 * "... brothers Bartolome and Gonzalo Garcia de Nodal leading the Garcia de Nodal expedition. During the course of their passage the expedition discovered a small group of islands about 60 miles (100 km) SW of Cape Horn, at latitude 56°30’S, which they named the Diego Ramirez Islands after their pilot, Diego Ramirez."
 * I believe the "Gonzalo Garcia de Nodal leading the Garcia de Nodal expedition" is a case of noun plus -ing. Perhaps "... brothers Bartolome and Gonzalo Garcia de Nodal.  Their Garcia de Nodal expedition discovered a small group of islands about 60 miles (100 km) SW of Cape Horn, at latitude 56°30’S, during the exploration of the Drake Passage.  The islands were named the Diego Ramirez Islands after the expedition's pilot."
 * I've more or less followed your suggestion, with a slight tweak. Brianboulton (talk) 14:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Captain James Cook
 * "second great voyage"
 * Heh, a bit biased, perhaps?
 * Yeah - great no more. Brianboulton (talk) 15:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

James Clark Ross
 * "carry out work on magnetism"
 * Would replacing "work" with "research" be better?
 * The "work" was largely the recording of data rather than investigating it. They usually used the word "work" to describe their activities - the word "research" would have been thought of by them as effete and French ("recherche"). Brianboulton (talk) 15:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, that sits fine with me. Jappalang (talk) 02:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Carsten Borchgrevink
 * "following Ross's route of 60 years previously"
 * I would suggest "following the route Ross had taken 60 years previously", based on a little joke I was thinking of how Ross took 60 years to travel his route (perhaps it is just my silly little mind).
 * Fixed. Brianboulton (talk) 15:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Robert Falcon Scott
 * "The Discovery Expedition of 1901–04 was Captain Scott's first Antarctic command. The published objectives of the expedition made no mention of the South Pole, but a southern journey was within Scott’s remit to "explore the ice barrier of Sir James Ross [...] and to endeavour to solve the very important physical and geographical questions connected with this remarkable ice formation".   This southern journey was undertaken by Scott, Edward Wilson and Ernest Shackleton. Although, according to Wilson, the intention was to "reach the Pole if possible, or find some new land", there is nothing in Scott's writings to suggest that the Pole was a definite goal."
 * There seems to be a tad of redundancy: both paragraphs state that the expedition's publishings mentioned no objective on making towards the South Pole. The two paragraphs could be merged.
 * Agreed, and merged. Brianboulton (talk) 15:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Polar conquest
 * "Then followed the ascent, via the newly discovered Axel Heiberg Glacier, to the plateau, and the final march to the Pole."
 * Who is the subject?
 * Fixed. Brianboulton (talk) 15:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that is about all I can nitpick on. Likely, several are not actionable based on personal subjectiveness. Generally, the article is in excellent shape. Jappalang (talk) 06:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for these numerous suggestions, most of which are now incorporated into the text. Where I haven't done so, I have explained why. I appreciate the care taken towards enhancing the article. Brianboulton (talk) 15:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No problems. I, in turn, fully support this article to be a Featured Article.  Jappalang (talk) 02:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Support A very impressive article you've written. I've made a couple minor wording tweaks in the past couple days, but feel free to revert if you don't agree with them. While this looks like a drive-by support with little meaning, this is clearly one of the most well-written articles I've seen at FAC. –Juliancolton <sup style="color:#666660;">Tropical <sup style="color:#666660;">Cyclone  02:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.