Wikipedia:Peer review/Nimrod Expedition/archive1

===Nimrod Expedition===


 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because this is the fourth and final article of a series dealing with the major British expeditions during the Heroic Age of Antarctic Exploration. The other three, Discovery Expedition, Terra Nova Expedition and Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expedition, are already FA, and Discovery Expedition was the main page article on 1 May 2008. I hope in due course to take this article to FAC, and would welcome any suggestions as to its improvement.

Thanks, Brianboulton (talk) 20:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

It is still open and located at Peer review/Nimrod Expedition/archive1.

Finetooth comments

This article is most interesting and generally well-done, and it is an excellent addition to the encyclopedia. I have a few suggestions for improvement, many of which are nit-picky but shouldn't take long to fix. I've listed them below in the order I noticed them, not in the order of importance.


 * I see a few missing metric conversions and a few places where tiny details about the conversions don't quite conform to the MoS guidelines. The conversion "12,450 feet (3,795 m.)" in the "Ascent of Mount Erebus" section is an example. The "m" shouldn't have a dot after it, and "3,795" seems to be off by a tiny bit. Over time, I've grown fond of the convert template, which not only can do an amazing number of conversions but prevents line-wrap and abbreviation problems. It will also wikilink unusual abbreviations if you tell it to, and it will add hyphens such as in this example, 15 mi, if you tell it to. The template conversion for 12,450 feet yields "12450 ft", which is 5 metres less than the number in the article. The conversion template instructions have to be followed exactly (no comma in the initial number, for example) and take a bit of getting used to but seem well worth it to me over the long haul. I added some conversion templates as I went along, but I didn't fix everything.
 * I will look again at all the metric conversions. Actually, the convert template is pretty clever, because in the example you quote (12,450 feet) it has rounded to 3,790m, sensing (correctly) that 12,450 is itself a rounding-off, and that the technically greater accuracy in my figure of 3,795 is spurious. I'll check every calculation with the template, and also ensure that formats are as they should be.
 * All distances now converted on the basis of the template.
 * A small number of missing conversions are linked to the ship's weight, given in tons. These might be converted to metric tons, and the awkward complication of long ton vs. short ton also arises. Assuming the "300 tons" mentioned in the lead are long tons, the conversion template, forced to convert to the nearest tenth, yields "300 LT". This might be so awkward that it should be ignored or relegated to a footnote, but I thought I would mention it.
 * I'll deal with this by a footnote - I really don't want to clutter the text if I can avoid it.
 * I've now introduced an explanatory footnote.


 * I see quite a few simple sentences with one subject and two verbs that are separated incorrectly by commas. For example, in the "Origins" section the article says, "He then began drawing up a prospectus for his own Antarctic expedition, and looking for potential backers. His initial plans appear in an unpublished document dated early 1906, and include an estimate of £17,000 for the entire expedition costs (2008 approximate equivalent £850,000). I would suggest deleting the commas before "and" in both sentences and all other sentences like them.
 * You're absolutely right. I'm afraid I tend sometimes to use commas like "um" and "er" in speech, a bad habit. I'll fix those you mention and look for other examples
 * I've picked up quite a few more examples and corrected them. I'll deal with any others if I see them.


 * In the lede, "Shackleton had broken an undertaking given to Scott" might be better with the more direct "Shackleton had broken a promise to Scott".
 * One's as good as the other, but as I've used "promise" further down I've adopted your suggestion.


 * "Emollient" is a delicious word and one that I had to look up in the dictionary. Since a lot of other readers may not know it, perhaps "soothing" or "mollifying" would be better.
 * I hate to lose "emollient", but as a reviewer I often rebuke editors for elitist English, so I must bow to your suggestion. The replacement I have chosen is "accommodating".

Yes. I was curious and did this just now for Discovery Expedition. The editor was User:SandyGeorgia on February 17, 2008. The edit summary was "this can be small". I see that you have succeeded in changing the Nimrod notes to two-column. Looks better, methinks. Finetooth (talk) 05:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It may be just a matter of taste, but I'd suggest using a two-column format for the long list of "Notes and references".
 * I hadn't thought of this, and don't actually know how to do it since the list generates itself. Nor have I seen it on any other article. The Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expedition article has 112 notes/references, Discovery Expedition has 93, ([and Hillary Rodham Clinton has 337!) so the list isn't unusually long. Unless there are strong feelings otherwise, I'll leave it alone.
 * Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expedition uses a two-column format. If you look at the reflist template in the "Notes" section in edit mode, you'll see how it's done. The vertical bar between parameters is just like the ones in the citation templates and the convert template. For my first couple of months as a Wikipedian I didn't know any way to make these vertical bars by except cut-and-paste. Then someone pointed out that I could make them with the keyboard with a shift-backslash combination. Hold the shift key down and press the backslash key and add the 2. Finetooth (talk) 19:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I was the main editor on the Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expedition article, and I didn't use a two-column format for the references. Nor does one appear on the article now, so I'm completely confused! Brianboulton (talk) 22:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't explain this mystery. On my screen I see notes 1 through 53 in the left-hand column of the "Notes" section and notes 54 through 112 in the right-hand column. The other two articles you mention above, Discovery Expedition and Hillary Rodham Clinton also have their notes split into two equal columns. Finetooth (talk) 23:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * All those articles have single lists on my screen. Can you look at the article histories for Discovery Expedition and Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expedition, and see if they indicates when these changes were done, and by whom? Brianboulton (talk) 00:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it makes no difference on my screen so I can't judge whether better or not. I'll take your word for it. Brianboulton (talk) 08:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This sentence in "Raising finance" has too many clauses, perhaps: "Shackleton expected to make large sums from his book of the expedition, from lectures, and from the sales of special New Zealand postage stamps, overprinted "King Edward VII Land", which would bear the cancellation stamp of the Antarctica post office which Shackleton, as temporary postmaster, intended to establish." I'd suggest making two sentences out of it.
 * You have exposed another of my weaknesses - overlong sentences that meander on and on. And on. I think it comes from reading too many classical novels. Anyway, I've made two sentences from your example, and will look carefully for other examples of which there are sure to be some.
 * In the "Personnel" section, I italicized Discovery two or three times but perhaps should not have. If ship, then italics; if expedition, then no italics. I'm not sure.
 * I think what you've done is OK; the ship's names are often used as shorthand for referring to the expedition and should be italicized in this context.


 * I think "Professor of Geology" should be "professor of geology".
 * I agree, and have amended accordingly.


 * "33 x 19 feet (10m x 6m)" might better be expressed as 33 ft by 19 ft.
 * Well, to me the original gives a more immediate image of the hut's dimensions. Unless I am violating some MoS dictum I would prefer to keep my format.=(the convert template gives 5.8m which I've used


 * I'd suggest re-casting this sentence to get rid of the sentence in parentheses: "It was divided into a series of mainly two-person cubicles (Shackleton had one to himself), with a kitchen area, a darkroom, storage and laboratory space."
 * Done this
 * Iceblink could be wikilinked, although the Ice Blink article needs some loving attention. Boxing Day should be wikilinked, I think. I'm pretty sure I missed some other special terms that might be linked.
 * I have linked ice blink and Boxing Day, and am hunting for other missing links.
 * I don't think "depoted" is a real verb. I would suggest "stored" or "stored in depots".
 * It's a manufactured verb, used only by polar historians, and I suppose I've picked it up. I've replaced it with "stored in depots".


 * Pole is capitalized in some places but not in others. I changed "pole" to "Pole" in several places, but I might have missed some.
 * It's fairly common in polar histories to use both the capitalized and non-capitalized form in the same account. If we are to adopt one form I prefer the capitalized Pole, and will go through for consistency.
 * All Poles now capitalized.
 * "On the following morning, however, after several attempts, they succeeded in setting light to a small magnetic hut." This sentence appears near the end of the "Return journey" section, but I don't know what it means.
 * Sorry, I should have explained better. They needed to attract the ship's attention, and the only way they could think of doing this was to set fire to a small hut used for magnetic observations. I have reworded, to make things clearer.

I enjoyed reading and working on this fine article, and I hope my comments are helpful. Finetooth (talk) 03:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I see "farthest south" in the "Outward journey" subsection but Furthest South in the caption in the "Return journey" section. I think an argument could be made for upper- or lowercase and "farthest" or "Furthest", so I can't say which is best.
 * Two issues here: farthest south or furthest south?, capitalized or not capitalized? I've had this issue in other polar articles. My preference is for farthest, and on balance for the non-capitaized form. I will go through and make things consistent.
 * All done now.
 * The final paragraph of the lede introduces material about Shackleton's leadership style that is undeveloped in the main text, and the rest of that paragraph praises Shackleton but is not especially informative. Since so much of the main text is devoted to the expedition itself, you might consider replacing that final lede paragraph with a summary of the lower sections of the main text. This might require reworking other bits of the lede to make it all come together.
 * The question of Shackleton's leadership style could be considered a relevant aspect of the expedition, and I intended originally to develop this in the body of the article, but then got concerned about the length. I will look at this issue again, and if I can rework and reduce other material I may be able to do justice to the leadership issue. I don't intend to lengthen the article, however.
 * I have removed the para dealing with Shackleton's leadership style since it isn't followed up in the article (except briefly in the "Winter Quarters" section. I have amended the lead so that it covers all parts of the article, but I haven't lengthened it.
 * The article is long. I would not suggest making it longer. It might be possible to shorten the "Southern journey" section a bit if it comes to that.
 * At around 5,500 words of text it is broadly in line with the other major expedition articles. I will see if I can reduce it without losing relevant content. My previous experience is that this is nearly always possible.
 * All in all the effect of my reworkings has been to reduce the article by 100 words or so. I will continue, as I always do, to see if I can identify any further sensible trimmings.
 * Thank you for this thorough review, and for the minor fixings that you have made to the article. I will respond to all points. Brianboulton (talk) 08:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe I've covered them all now. Brianboulton (talk) 17:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments from
 * Nimrod section, second paragraph the quotation "assumed a more satisfactory appearance"... needs a direct citation.
 * Citation added
 * Same for the Promise to Scott section, third paragraph, "I am leaving the McMurdo base to you"
 * Citation added
 * GAH! They named the pony and here I thought it would live.. Poor poor Socks...
 * At least he didn't get eaten
 * Outward march section, fifth paragraph, last sentences need a citation.
 * I've rewritten (and cited) this sentence, since on reflection its original chronology wasn't quite spot on. I've also added (and cited) a bit more in the next paragraph, re Shackleton's admission that the Pole was unattainable.
 * Return journey, third paragraph, the quotation starting "Carlsbad plums..." is long enough to need a citation.
 * Citation added
 * Sources look fine. I did some minor copyediting, mainly inserting and removing stray spaces. 04:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the copyedits, too. Brianboulton (talk) 11:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

'''Comments from

I've given this a copyedit. I've worked on so many of these that I've forgone my usual verbose edit summaries in the expectation that you'll understand my changes, but by all means ask if something doesn't make sense. Some remaining issues: Thanks for another interesting, engaging article. Maralia (talk) 19:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "Its vessel Nimrod was a 40-year-old small wooden sealer" - suggest "small, 40-year-old wooden sealer "
 * Agreed and done
 * "This was by far the longest southern polar journey to that date, and involved the returning party in a dramatic dash to reach safety before the ship sailed." - a more descriptive word than 'involved' would clarify the connection between the halves of this sentence
 * Reworded: "....journey to that date, and was followed by the returning party's dramatic dash....."
 * I may have made an AmEng blunder. I changed "to obtain the necessary finance" to "to obtain the necessary financing", and "Raising finance" to "Raising finances". In American English, 'finance' (singular) is nearly always a verb. Are my changes an acceptable compromise?
 * "Financing" is fine. "Raising finances" is not trad. Brit-Eng, but it's acceptable and I've no objection to it.
 * "Shackleton should, in short, find a base somewhere else." - This interpretive sentence breaks the tone of the article by almost addressing the audience. I think the conclusion is clear without it.
 * Deleted
 * "Shackleton’s only choice now, other than abandonment, was to break the undertaking he had given to Scott" - 'undertaking' is not what you mean here, is it? 'promise'?
 * "Undertaking" in this sense means an agreement to do something, so the word fits OK. However, I have used the word promise earlier in the article and so have changed it here.
 * I reworked the paragraph beginning "As the group moved into unknown territory"; please double-check to ensure I didn't misconstrue the sequence of events.
 * Much better. Thank you
 * "His status as a leading figure of the Heroic Age was assured, however." - what Heroic Age?
 * Sorry: it's the Heroic Age of Antarctic Exploration, now linked.

I hope that the above responses are satisfactory. Brianboulton (talk) 09:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)