Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Australasian Antarctic Expedition/archive1

TFA blurb review
The Australasian Antarctic Expedition (1911–1914), headed by Douglas Mawson, explored the largely uncharted coast of Antarctica due south of Australia. Mawson was inspired to lead his own venture by his experiences on Ernest Shackleton's Nimrod expedition in 1907–1909. During its time in Antarctica, the Australasian Antarctic Expedition's sledging parties covered around 2600 mi of unexplored territory. Its ship, SY Aurora, navigated 1800 mi of unmapped coastline. Scientific activities included meteorological measurements, magnetic observations, an expansive oceanographic program, and the collection of many biological and geological samples, including the discovery of the first meteorite found in Antarctica. The expedition was the first to establish and maintain wireless contact between Antarctica and Australia. Its broad exploration program laid the groundwork for Australia's later territorial claims in Antarctica.

Just a suggested blurb ... thoughts and edits are welcome. - Dank (push to talk) 23:49, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Enormity
Just clicked on your "enormity" link. I'm always interested in lexical matters. I had forgotten about this distinction although I didn't expect Wiktionary in this instance to be more prescriptive than descriptive. The OED entry, which hasn't been updated since 1891, but requires a subscription nonetheless, agrees with Wiktionary; or more likely, it is vice-versa. However, the modern online dictionaries such as Cambridge English Dictionary, Longman's Dictionary and Oxford Dictionaries Online have all promoted Number 4 meaning to Number 1 (in Charlie Chan's lingo).

Webster's Unabridged, though not free, earns its keep with the most detailed note: "Enormity, some people say, is improperly used to denote large size. They insist on enormousness for this meaning, and would limit enormity to something along the lines of “great wickedness.” Those who urge such a limitation may not recognize the subtlety with which enormity is actually used. It regularly denotes a considerable departure from the expected or normal.  ... When used to denote large size, either literal or figurative, it usually suggests something so large as to seem overwhelming. < … helpful, self-effacing individuals, whose own creative powers may well be devoured by the enormity of the task before them. — Joyce Carol Oates, American Poetry Review, May/June 1974>  And so it goes. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  14:16, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I nearly always use "magnitude" for meaning 4 and "enormity" for 1 to 3, because it entertains me to imagine that politicians are using meanings 1 to 3 when they talk about "the enormity" of what they have achieved; in much the same way I imagine they are using meanings 1 or 2 when they claim their answers have been "fulsome". I am easily entertained. Yomangani talk 02:09, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * So are we. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  02:12, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Haha. I like the politicians allusion.  I agree too, in an encyclopedia, you might in many instances be able to use "magnitude."  But you can't really use it in other registers, for example,  in fiction. You can't create the same affect with "magnitude of the desert."  See Paul Theroux above.  Or, e.g.  


 * Webster's ends with some sage advice: "Our recommendation is that you follow the writers and not the critics in the case of enormity: the former use enormity with a richness and subtlety that the latter have failed to take account of." (And they end with a preposition no less.) But I agree overall.  Enormity with meaning 4 cannot relly be used in mainspace WP.  In talk space or edit summaries yes.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:37, 16 February 2020 (UTC)