Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Voyage of the Karluk/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 18:43, 16 February 2010.

Voyage of the Karluk

 * Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 16:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The Karluk's tragic Arctic voyage happened just before the First World War, and because of this historical timing is perhaps less well known than otherwise it might be. Eleven men died, nothing significant was achieved, yet as with other polar tales the tragedy is tempered by personal heroism. The story is here, after a very comprehensive peer review, probably the most thorough that I have encountered. Thanks to all who participated, and to Finetooth for the excellent map. Also thanks to Dankarl, who created the stub from which this article was expanded and has continued to provide content and suggestions. Brianboulton (talk) 16:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Disclaimer: Thanks, but I did not start the stub, just cleaned it up a bit and added some references; several other editors contributed along the way. Dankarl (talk) 20:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Support I was one of the peer reviewers and all of my concerns were met there. The PR was so extensive and thorough that I did not find anything else to raise here on another reading of the article. Well done, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 19:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reviiew contribution and for your support here. Brianboulton (talk) 15:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments. No dab links or dead external links. A few problems with the alt text: for example, the one for the map does not include the itinerary of the journey. Ucucha 20:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added a bit of alt text to the map image. You refer to "a few problems" - can you identify them? Brianboulton (talk) 23:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the vagueness. My issues mainly have to do with WP:ALT: for example, in the fourth image ("The expedition's scientific staff"), it says they are "probably on a ship", which is not clear to me at least. Also in the image of the Chukchi. Then there are some copy-editing issues (for example, "caucasian" not capitalized, "2" somewhere in text).
 * Thanks for adding the map alt text, but this doesn't give the information that is most useful to someone who can't see the images, which is where the journey actually went to. I think you should say something like "The voyage began at a point in western Alaska and continued close to a coast to an island near northeastern Alaska." and so forth. Ucucha 23:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I have extended the map alt text a little more, have removed the uncertainty in "probably on the deck of a ship" and have corrected a couple of typos. If you think you can improve on these texts, please feel free to do so, but bear in mind that alt text is intended to explain the essence of an image, not to provide a detailed description. Otherwise alt texts can easily become essays. Brianboulton (talk) 15:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course, but I feel the essence of this image is the route of the ship, and the map provides an important visual summary of the journey, the subject of the article. I'll see what other minor changes may be needed in the alt text&mdash;thanks for the work so far! Ucucha 17:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. This is beautifully written, a good length, and nicely laid out. Just a couple of comments. I would include in the first sentence when and where the ship was built&mdash;with some of the details from the Ship section, such as it (her?) being a 29-year-old brigantine built for the Aleutian fishing industry, later converted for whaling, and that karluk is the Aleut word for "fish." Along the same lines, I'd say more about the characters on first reference e.g. in the lead that Stefansson was a U.S.-based, Canadian-born anthropologist of Icelandic origin; otherwise the reader is left to wonder a little who is what. I would explain what "pemmican" was, at the point where you explain that it might have killed them, even though you linked to it earlier. Or I'd signal on first reference that it was going to be important and would explain there. I would also combine some refs to avoid things like: By the afternoon all 14 survivors were aboard.[112][107][108] These suggestions are all just editorial preference, though, so feel free to ignore. It's a lovely article, which I enjoyed reading and learned a lot from. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 00:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words and support. I have added a couple of short descriptive phrases into the lead, re the ship and Stefansson, but am reluctant to add more and thereby merely duplicate what's in the main text. I have also added a brief description of pemmican at its first (linked) mention. I'll tidy up the odd multiple reference. Brianboulton (talk) 15:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. I've been working on articles on Arctic exploration here for a couple of years, and this is one of the best I've read. I have participated in earlier reviews, but am not an author of any of the text.  Watching the peer review process, I was impressed with the way each suggestion or criticism was addressed -- I think this entry is very well-honed, readable, and meets all other FA criteria. Clevelander96 (talk) 01:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support, and for the encouragement you have provided throughout the article's development. Brianboulton (talk) 15:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. I was one of the peer reviewers, and I made the map, as Brian noted above. All of my concerns have been addressed, and I'm happy to support this excellent article. Finetooth (talk) 02:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support, and again for the excellent work on the map. Brianboulton (talk) 22:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. (I briefly peer-reviewed this and have made minor edits.) Solidly crafted prose, a riveting story, well-sourced, and the cutest picture of an Arctic explorer that I've ever seen. Eubulides (talk) 08:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Final tweaks and adjustments much appreciated, as is the support. Brianboulton (talk) 22:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Support Most of the issues I spotted at peer review have been addressed; I am compiling a list of others (I did not get all the way through the article before the PR closed )and will put them on the article talk page (expect it by the weekend). Very well written and well worth another star.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. You get the idea when reviewing this article that it's been masterfully checked over again and again. I do however have a point below:
 * Comment The article has a number of occurances of 'miles.' Sometimes on land, sometimes at sea. I think clarity about nautical and statute mile is required at least as a footnote or something, because it's not clear to me what type it's always referring to. SunCreator (talk) 18:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments and support. The question of "miles" is something that concerned me when I was writing the article, but none of the sources are helpful - they just say "miles". We might assume that miles given at sea are nautical miles and those over land are statute, but this would be guesswork; treating the sea distances as nautical miles without evidence might be considered OR. In the end I've left it as the sources have it. A footnote could only say that, in the absence of other information, all miles have been treated as statute. Would this be helpful? Brianboulton (talk) 22:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that wording(or similar) is fine. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Footnote added to first mention of miles. Brianboulton (talk) 00:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'm having access problems (see note below) and may not be able to respond quickly for a few days, but I'll do my best to keep in touch. Brianboulton (talk) 11:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Note to reviewers: I am having computer problems at the moment and am relying on library access or borrowing, so my responses may not be immmediate for a few days. Rest assured that all comments will be addressed as soon as I can. Brianboulton (talk) 11:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC) Problem over for the moment, via borrowed hardware. Brianboulton (talk) 19:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * All images appear to comply with copyright policy. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 19:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. NB there is substantial image discussion in the archived PR. Brianboulton (talk) 09:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Support well done Dincher (talk) 22:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Brianboulton (talk) 21:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Support I peer reviewed this article - it was good then and is even better now. It clearly explains the story of the expedition and the research is thorough. I really enjoyed reading about how the expedition members couldn't agree on what to do. Awadewit (talk) 05:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and also for your contributions to the peer review. Brianboulton (talk) 21:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Exemplary FA quality prose and a damn good read. Graham Colm (talk) 13:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words Brianboulton (talk) 21:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments -
 * The first further reading entry (Levere) is that a journal article? I can't tell from the lack of quotation marks.
 * Yes it is, I've fixed the templates Brianboulton (talk) 21:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.