Wikipedia:Peer review/Terra Nova Expedition/archive1

Terra Nova Expedition

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… it was recently given GA status after intensive development and rewriting, and I think it can go further, to Feature Article status perhaps. I'd welcome comments which address 4 basic questions: Is it accurate? Is it comprehensive - anything important left out or underplayed? Is it fair (given the contentious atmosphere around anything to do with Scott)? and is it readable?

Thanks, Brianboulton (talk) 23:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, yes, yes - no, and yes. A couple of points that will play against it at FAC:

• The lead is poor: it isn't a summary of the article, stresses the principal aim without any references as to why it needs stressing (and hence is assuming some prior knowledge), and redirects the reader off to a subsection of an inferior article as its final act. If the "Scott was a hero/fool" debate isn't worth covering in more than a couple of paragraphs here (and in my opinion it isn't), then it isn't worth mentioning in the lead.

I've amended the first para of the introduction to remove any ambiguity about the main objective. To strengthen this intro as a summary of the article I've transferred the 2nd para to Background, and have extended the third paragraph. I think it is necessary to retain a mention of the controversies, or "debate", but I have removed the link to the Scott article and I have slightly expanded my "Aftermath" section to demonstrate the nature, but not the detail, of these issues. Brianboulton (talk) 00:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• It's a bit listy - the member list could be rewritten as prose: it's an ugly introduction to the rest of the well-constructed article, the formatting is inconsistent and the links to photographs incomplete. The chapter-like subheadings in "Voyage out" are unnecessary and distracting and the Appendices could be moved to "See also" or absorbed into the text. Appendix 1 is particularly uninspiring.

I've converted the personnel lists into a prose paragraph which doesn't mention them all but says something about the more important figures. This has had a knock-on effect on the Preparation section, which I have revised into new sub-sections - Background, Personnel, Finance & Expedition Plan. The content is generally as it was before, though presented slightly differently. As to the photolinks agaisnst certain names, these were placed by an earlier editor (together with others that no longer worked and which I got rid of some time ago. I've looked at them again and decided that only the one linked to Herbert Ponting is worth saving. This is in "See also", and the rest have gone' I have removed the sub-headings in "Voyage Out" - I agree they don't work well. As to the appendices, I've got rid of Nos 1 and 3, and transferred 2 into the text. No 1 had, on reflection, nothing to add to the article, and 3 was probbaly too trivial to warrant the space. Brianboulton (talk) 00:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Decide on the capitalisation and italicisation of Terra Nova Expedition. I'd go for all caps, no italics, but whatever you choose be consistent.

It will be Terra Nova Expedition as the formal title of the expedition, Terra Nova for the ship, and "the expedition" (no caps) for general reference. I will go through again for consistency. Brianboulton (talk) 00:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Two books listed under sources are missing ISBN numbers.

ISBN numbers added. I am using a 1913 edition of Scott's Last Expedition and that doesn't have one. Brianboulton (talk) 00:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Good luck. Yomangani^talk 10:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Brianboulton (talk) 00:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It looks better. You have a 1913 edition of Scott's Last Expedition? If it has the dust jacket you could sell it and fund your own mini expedition (You got the two ISBNs I was referring to anyway). I removed the "See..." sentence from the end of the lead. The lead should be self-contained, and as an introduction you should assume the reader will then read the rest of the article. I noticed a few other points:

• Many of the distances and weights appear only as Imperial measurements (a few are converted but not many)

I have added metric equivalents to all distances and weights Brianboulton (talk) 16:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Dashes need looking at (I can never work out what dashes to use where, but there are plenty of people who are expert in this)

I think I've observed the protocols for hyphens, dashes etc but I'm sure someone will tell me I haven't Brianboulton (talk) 16:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Lots of the wikilinks are piped to Antarctica - I'd suggest having a hunt around for the articles to see if they exist anywhere, but if not leave them as redlinks rather than piping them all to the same article (If anybody complains about them at FAC my former incarnation will metaphorically kick them up the arse)

I've removed several Antarctica pipes as I've found the articles existing in their own right. In one case I found a better pipe Brianboulton (talk) 16:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not keen on the self-referential rhetorical style you've introduced in the Aftermath section. It's a personal preference, but I find it jars with the rest of the article. If you are providing a brief overview you should be able to make that clear without a statement of intent. It won't stop me supporting, but I'd prefer to see it more in the style of the rest of the article. Yomangani^talk 01:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I have amended the wording to strike a more neutral tone.

Incidentally, my 1913 SLE is second impression, so no expedition funds there Brianboulton (talk) 16:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks good, take it to FAC.Yomangani^talk 16:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR _t 15:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)