Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nimrod 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 00:47, 7 June 2008.

Nimrod Expedition
This is the fourth and final article of a series dealing with the major British Antarctic expeditions of the early 20th century. Its three predecessors (Discovery Expedition (main page 1st May), Terra Nova Expedition and Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expedition have all been promoted to FA. I have tried to apply lessons learned from these earlier FAC experiences to the production of this article, which has completed a peer review. Because these expeditions tended to follow a standard formula, and were basically covering the same territory, some of the material in this article will be familar to long-suffering reviewers who have patiently worked through the earlier articles. However, there are sufficient divergences among these stories to make each expedition memorable. The Nimrod Expedition, in particular, stands in sharp contrast to Captain Scott's formal, hierarchical and ultimately disastrous Royal Navy affairs - an adventure on a shoestring that exceeded all expectations. Thank you.

Self-nominator: Brianboulton (talk) 20:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments Sources look good. The few links checked out okay with the link checker tool. Full disclosure, I peer reviewed this article for sourcing. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Support. You have managed to bring the expedition back to life in a vibrant and exciting article. Graham Colm Talk 22:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Update. The article has been much improved since my initial review.Graham Colm Talk 22:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

Brianboulton (talk) 23:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "had been invalided home" — I must admit, I am not too familiar with the word "invalid" as a verb. Answers.com says it's "Chiefly British" — perhaps this can be reworded?
 * It's common enough usage here, and it's in the sources. However, I've reworded: "had been sent home from the Antarctic in 1903 after a health breakdown". That should clarify meaning. Brianboulton (talk) 23:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "He had not wanted to leave" &rarr; "He did not want to leave"?
 * I've removed this phrase - it's not really necessary since Shackleton's disappointment is alluded to later in the next sentence. Brianboulton (talk) 23:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know the definition of certain words, such as prospectus, and I'm sure others don't, either as these are not commonly used words; at least, not to me. Could you at least link them, and maybe explain them a bit if possible?
 * I have changed "prospectus" to "programme". The link on prospectus isn't helpful, and I'm not so enamoured of the word as to want to keep it, especialy when it may cause confusion. Until I have further details of the other words that you don't understand, I can't take action on your request, but will respond when able.Brianboulton (talk) 23:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "£17,000" &rarr; "GBP£17,000"
 * I've yet to see the GBP£ formulation, or indeed a USD$ formulation, in an article. No doubt they exist, but not commonly. I have linked the first mention of £ in this article. Please tell me if you think this insufficient.
 * I take that back - I've now found US$ on several occasions. So I'll adopt GBP£17,000.
 * "(2008 approximate equivalent £850,000)" perhaps "(equivalent to approximately £850,000 in 2008)" to make it easier to read?
 * I agree this is a better wording and have adopted it for the first equivalence. Thereafter I continue to use the short form (2008 = approx. £xxxx). Brianboulton (talk) 23:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

These are only in the first section, also. Gary King ( talk ) 19:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I assume you will have more to say, later. Brianboulton (talk) 23:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The above are just samples. It is suggested that a thorough copyedit by an involved editor be made. Gary King ( talk ) 00:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I’m sorry, I don’t know what you mean by an "involved" editor. Involved in what way? If you mean in the article's production, that's basically me, and I've edited the thing until my eyes hurt. I believe that any article, at whatever state of development, is capable of improvement. However, a general request for further "thorough" copyediting, which suggests serious problems but doesn’t clarify  what they are, is not particularly helpful. What, exactly, do you think this new copyedit should be focussing on? You obviously have issues with this article, and I would like to resolve them with you, but I can't do this via a guessing game.  If it is largely a question of language, then I need to know the actual words or terms that perplex you, so that I can make some judgement about them.  Or about whatever else it is that you think needs improving. I don't mind how lengthy the list is, as long as it's actionable in some way.   (And if you can say anything positive about the article, so much the better.)  Brianboulton (talk) 11:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I meant uninvolved, my mistake. I'm going to strikeout for now. Gary King ( talk ) 16:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Support: This is an excellent article that I believe meets all the criteria with the possible exception of the unresolved image questions discussed above. In the interest of full disclosure, I will say that I am a heavily-involved editor who did a peer review of the article on 14 May. I also did a top-to-bottom copyedit today in response to suggestions made in the discussions above. Finetooth (talk) 23:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Support I enjoyed the article when I peer reviewed it. I found some picky stuff, which was corrected. The finer points of grammar sometimes pass me by, so I can't swear that it's perfect grammatically or spelling wise. Sources are good, but the poor pony! (sniffles). Another good one Brian. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.