Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Halkett boat/archive1


 * 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 Karanacs 21:31, 1 June 2010.

Halkett boat

 * Nominator(s): –  iride  scent  21:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Viewed one way, Peter Halkett was a visionary genius a hundred years ahead of his time who was one of the first to see the implications of the newly-invented invention of rubberised fabric, and had his designs gained wider acceptance Titanic would have had a happy ending as Jack ferried Rose to safety on one of the cheap and tightly-stacked collapsible lifeboats stored on every ship. Viewed the other way, Peter Halkett was an English eccentric of the type the 19th century produced so many of, with a crackpot vision of top-hatted Victorian gentlemen and their trusty flat-capped servants navigating their way up the Northwest Passage on a flotilla of umbrella-propelled cloaks.

This one's short, but as far as I'm aware it covers everything that has been written on the topic. The Arctic expeditions of the early 19th century are an unfashionable and almost forgotten piece of history today; while a lot of books on the period mention Halkett boats in passing, to the best of my knowledge Stephanie Pain's 2009 paper and the 1955 Beaver article are the only pieces published in reliable sources that cover Halkett's designs in detail. Credit to Malleus for a lot of thankless chopping and cleaning of the original article. – iride  scent  21:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Pre-emptive responses: (1) I'm aware that Canadian Arctic is slightly inaccurate as some of these territories hadn't yet been formally incorporated into Canada, but I assume people will understand what's meant. I really don't want to go down the "Northern Lower Canada, Rupert's Land, the British Arctic Islands and the undefined territory between present-day Nunavut and Alaska" route. (2) No, there's no way to write a "legacy" section. Modern inflatable boats were introduced in the Second World War, but there's nothing to suggest that their designers on either side were aware of Halkett. (3) No, I can't find a source for how much they cost and how many were made; I can find catalogue entries for them but nothing giving a price, and I suspect they were built to order and priced according to specifications. – iride  scent  21:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Comments (but looking to support as its a fascinating article): Parrot of Doom 22:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "Spurred on by the successful testing of the boat-cloak" - before this the article states that testing had to be abandoned?
 * It was successfully tested in the Thames. The seaworthiness tests in the Bay of Biscay were abandoned due to the calm weather, but those were just Halkett testing its limits—it was never intended to be used in open seas (see the footnote). – iride  scent  22:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "John Franklin bought one to take on the ill-fated 1845 expedition in which the entire expedition party of 129 men and two ships vanished.[11] Franklin saw the boats as so essential to travel in Canada that he gave this boat to Sir George Simpson, Governor-in-Chief of Rupert's Land, for use in his travels in the region.[12][note 2]" - did Franklin not go on the first expedition, or did he change his mind and give the boat away before he went?
 * Franklin was planning his forthcoming expedition, and had the boat in readiness. Simpson had been appointed Governor of Rupert's Land (modern central Canada), and Franklin gave him the boat to make it easier to get around between the isolated outposts of his territory. Franklin ordered a replacement from Halkett, which was delivered in time for the Franklin expedition. – iride  scent  22:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You might want to clarify that then. I had to read the sentence a few times to work out what I thought was happening, and I still wasn't clear until I read the above. Parrot of Doom 22:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Does this work? – iride  scent  22:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "Keen to find out what had become of the ships and men of Franklin's expedition, in 1848 the Royal Navy sent an expedition led by John Richardson and John Rae to search for the party, equipped with a Halkett boat provided by the government" - this makes it appear as though "the party" was equipped with a Halkett boat.
 * Not sure how to word it. (Both parties were in fact equipped with Halkett boats.) "An expedition led by John Richardson and John Rae, equipped with a Halkett boat, to search for the party" to me reads like the boat was going to do the searching, not Richardson and Rae. – iride  scent  22:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * How about this? Parrot of Doom 22:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, fine – iride  scent  22:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Where is the Stromness Museum? Parrot of Doom 22:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Stromness, astonishingly enough. I don't want to say "The Stromness Museum in Stromness" if I can help it, it looks daft. – iride  scent  22:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd put Orkney on it then. Parrot of Doom 22:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Done – iride  scent  22:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Images The article seems overloaded with images, perhaps File:Franklin's_canoes_in_gale.jpg could be dropped, I don't think it conveys any information, and the text would not be drowned in a sea of images if it was dropped. (licensing of images is fine) Fasach Nua (talk) 22:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That one's disposable if anyone else objects to its being there—if removed, it will leave a long stretch with no images (which is part of the reason I added it). I'd vehemently object to removing any of Halkett's drawings, all of which show things I'd consider essential to understanding the concept of Halkett boats and how they differ from both the standard rubber dinghy and the traditional kayak. – iride  scent  22:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. I really don't want this to look like a pile-on fan support, but when I reviewed this recently at GAN my first thought was "Why is this here? Why isn't it at FAC?" Malleus Fatuorum 22:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Comment . Generally looks good. It certainly is extremely concise. You mention that several sources refer to them "in passing". I looked at one - Arctic hell-ship (2007), and it indicates their use in the 1850-52 voyage of the HMS Enterprise, and some comments about them leaking (i agree - in passing). This would seem a higher quality source than the New Scientist article and perhaps slightly more detailed in some respects. It also gives a different name to the leader (richard Collinson) to the 1848 expedition (John Richardson and John Rae), suggesting these are two separate expeditions that used the boats, and could then be covered separately in the article. In terms of its reception by coleagues and the Inuit, the remarks by Sherard Osborn in The Polar regions: or a search after Sir John Franklin's expedition might be worth considering. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Arctic Hell-ship does mention them, but it seems all to be fairly trivial mentions, other than the brief anecdote about one capsizing in a storm—I can't see anything that adds any technical detail as to the design. I was aiming for a concise narrative arc (Peter Halkett grows up listening to tales of Franklin's 1819–22 disaster from his father &rarr; he resolves to think of a way to stop it happening again &rarr; he invents the inflatable boat &rarr; Franklin uses it and dies anyway &rarr; Rae uses them successfully and proves the concept is viable). I don't really want it to go down the List of expeditions that were equipped with Halkett boats route if it can be avoided; there were quite a lot of expeditions in this period, many of which would have taken one, and thus I've tried to limit it to those (Franklin, Rae, Bellot) who fit into that broader narrative. There's also an issue in that in the 1850s Thomas Hancock and Charles Goodyear invented the rubber dinghy (they seem to have come up with the idea independently), which although it differs from the fabric-based and sharp-prowed Halkett boat is the same basic concept; thus, unless it specifically mentions Halkett's name it's impossible to say whether "Foo was equipped with an inflatable boat" refers to a Halkett boat or not.
 * I think the Sherard Osborn quote has a period charm, and if there were space I'd definitely include it in a quote-box to provide background colour (I don't think it adds enough to make it worth sacrificing one of Halkett's drawings to free up space, though), but I'm not sure there's really anything usable in it as a source, other than as another source for the fact that yes, people really did use the things.
 * I've no concerns about Stephanie Pain as a reliable source; she's a respected writer on the history of science and engineering (and Associate Editor of New Scientist). NS isn't always reliable at the time of printing—because they're a weekly when all the other major science periodicals are monthly, they sometimes cut corners to be first with the news—but they're scrupulous about corrections, and their broad cross-disciplinary readership means that errors generally get spotted and fixed very quickly. – iride  scent  09:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Taking pts in reverse: 1. sorry, i didn't want to suggest i had any issues with NS as a source, only that a scholarly book if available is perhaps superior. 2. Agree about the period charm, but that the pictures are more important. 3. While a long "List of expeditions that were equipped with Halkett boats" would be undesirable, i think you are in no danger of succumbing to that problem :-) But I do think mentioning their repeated use in hte post-Franklin voyages is worth half a sentence or so. In this particular csae there's no danger of dinghy / Halkett confusion as they are identified by that particular name in the text. I'll have a shot perhaps. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me – iride  scent  17:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment—no dab links, no dead external links (and no dashes to fix either, you leave me nothing to do). Ucucha 07:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing and referencing: An irritating feature of the "cite journal" template is that, unlike "cite book", it reveals page numbers unadorned, without explanation as to what they are - as for example, in refs 2, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13. To overcome this, and to achieve consistency with other formats, it is necessary to enter the page field in the cite journal as "page= p. xxx". That way, page numbers are properly identified. I have done this with the Dickens ref, perhaps you could do the rest?

Otherwise, sources look good, no further issues. Brianboulton (talk) 10:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Done – iride  scent  17:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Images okay: all verifiably in the public domain. Jappalang (talk) 10:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Support: Another short and interesting read that covers most of the bases on this little innovation, and what an innovation! The sight of the umbrella held tightly in the boater's hand to catch the wind is hilarious! Yet it worked. I have to wonder now why special forces have to lug around inflatable boats when they could be wearing these (heh). Jappalang (talk) 10:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That is something I've wondered as well. Halkett was working with canvas and rubber; with modern synthetic fabrics, I'm not sure why one couldn't make boats small enough to fit into a pocket. The principles are still sound; Halkett would certainly recognise the Sevylor boats still in use today. – iride  scent  11:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Nice read, which seems to cover the ground fully. Johnbod (talk) 21:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Support on 1(a,d,e), all of 2, and 4 by an odd name. Some comments:
 * "Halkett boat refers to two types of lightweight inflatable boat designed by Lt Peter Halkett (1820–1885) during the 1840s."—possible use-mention problem. The replacements I can think of, however, seem worse, and I think it's less of a biggie here because the article is about two boat types so named.
 * "Peter Halkett was in the 1840s a Lieutenant in the Royal Navy."—feels like it lacks commas ("Halkett, in the 1840s, a ...") or like in the 1840s belongs at the end of the sentence.
 * Dates are consistent Day Month Year in text. There's Day Month Year accessdates and ISO style publish dates in the refs.  It's good and consistent, but I think just using one format for all the refs would be even better (and I think just using Day Month Year all around the article would be ideal).
 * I'm not a big fan of "whilst" (as opposed to "while"). I'm motivated there by Tony1's 1a userpages, though, and don't think it's wrong in any way.

Otherwise, article looks good. I'm simply not familiar enough with the boats to speak for the article's completeness or accuracy. However, the body and lead look crisp and good, the subject is explained deeply and quite well (especially for the length), and new people are briefly and nicely introduced, so I'll partial-support as above. If I ever made a product, I'd take "although in constant use for upwards of six weeks on a rocky coast it never required the slightest repair" and "ought to form part of the equipment of every expedition" as one hell of a compliment; given that, it's a shame the boats were ultimately just abandoned. --an odd name 03:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Answering in order:
 * Regarding the lead, I think "Halkett boat refers to" is correct (as opposed to "Halkett boats refer to"). They refer to two different designs, both called "Halkett boat". As there are other boats of a similar design (most obviously the Sevylor boats I mention above) it needs to be clear that it refers to the specific designs of Halkett, not the general type.
 * I can see no obvious way to reword "Peter Halkett was in the 1840s a Lieutenant in the Royal Navy". "Peter Halkett, a Lieutenant in the Royal Navy in the 1840s, was…" would merge two already-long sentences. It needs to get across the specific point that he designed them during his service in the Navy.
 * I always use ISO-style dates in refs, and one of the user-friendly ones in the text itself. My think is (and always has been) that the references are one of the few things in an non-list article which someone could conceivably want to sort, and the ISO format dates make it much easier. It also makes it easier for bots to cope with; Wikipedia's bots can generally cope with varying date formats, but not necessarily our mirrors—and everything I do is done with at least half an eye on whether it will survive a migration to a possible Wikipedia II. (Both the MediaWiki interface and the WMF itself are clumsy botch-jobs handling a task they were never designed to cope with, and sooner or later one or the other will be replaced.)
 * I disagree with Tony over "whilst" (and with a lot of his misplaced formality section—utilize, for instance, is most certainly not a synonym of use). This is an article in British English on a British topic, and "whilst" is perfectly ordinary British English usage, not any kind of archaism or pretentiousness. – iride  scent  19:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "In the 1840s Peter Halkett was a Lieutenant in the Royal Navy..." ? Johnbod (talk) 19:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I want to start that particular section with his name if at all possible; its purpose is to show why an English sailor who'd never lived in Canada should have (a) have an interest in the Arctic, and (b) be so interested in the design of portable boats. – iride  scent  19:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.