Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Robert Falcon Scott

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 01:41, 3 April 2008.

---

Robert Falcon Scott

Self-nominator: Brianboulton (talk) 00:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Bellhalla (talk) 15:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Infobox: HMS Britannia leads to a disambiguation page (Also in "Family background", 2nd paragraph)
    • Both links now corrected
  • Need an en-dash between birth and death dates in lead sentence.
    • Done
  • Lead section, 2nd paragraph: a comma after "Discovery Expedition" will help to avoid the strange "Discovery Expedition Scott"
    • Done
  • Same section, 4th paragraph: Terra Nova Stoker? Is this a stoker for the Terra Nova expedition? Should be in lower case if so. Also, consider linking to stoker.
    • Yes, and linked
  • Same paragraph: The sentence beginning with "As an explorer…" is awkward. Is the "As an explorer" really necessary for the sentence?
    • Rephrased
  • Early naval career, 1st paragraph: Spacing after note 8 in first sentence
    • Fixed
  • Same paragraph: HMS Boadicea leads to dab page
    • No article for this Boadicea, so de-linked. Could redlink I suppose
  • Same paragraph: The WP article styles it as "Saint Kitts" rather than "St Kitts"
    • All my books say St Kitts, and so does my school atlas, so I think it's right
      • St Kitts redirects there, so no problem
  • Same section, 2nd paragraph: HMS Vernon leads to a dab page
    • Properly linked to the torpedo training school
  • Same section, 3rd paragraph: HMS Amphion seems confusingly piped to Royal Navy. If no article, delink the ship name rather than link to an unexpected location
    • Delinked
  • Same section, 4th paragraph: HMS Vulcan leads to a dab page
    • Delinked, per Boadicea
  • Same section, 5th paragraph: RGS? If it's the Royal Geographical Society, introduce the abbreviation in the article when the group is first mentioned. Also, this abbreviation is used in several sections. You might consider introducing it as "Royal Geographic Society" at first mention in new sections for those not familiar with it.
    • I've added (RGS) to the first mention. Personally I think it will over-clutter the article if I spell it out in full in each new section.
      • That's reasonable enough
  • Discovery section, 1st paragraph, sentence beginning "Scott may not…": Move the note after punctuation, rather than placing it in the middle of a phrase. My preference is always for the end of a sentence, but after the comma is certainly acceptable.
    • Done
  • Same section, final sentence: "He had a career with belly buttons!" What does this mean? Also, exclamation points—except in direct quotes—are generally not considered encyclopedic. (Vandalism was removed)
  • Same section, 2nd paragraph: I think the minutes of longitude would be better served with a straight, rather than curly, quote. (Same goes for instance in 2nd paragraph of "Journey to the Pole")
    • Done
  • Same section, 3rd paragraph: I'm not familiar with the term "man-hauling". Can that be rephrased to sound less jargon-like?
    • Can't really be rephrased as it's a standard polar exploration term, but I have added an explanatory note
  • "Popular hero" section: Is "returned Britain" a UK/Commonwealth phrase? Seems like there's a missing preposition.
    • Yes, I've inserted it
  • Same section: HMS Victorious leads to a dab page
    • De-linked, per Boadicea
  • "Marriage" section, 1st paragraph: You might link to Edwardian period for those unfamiliar with "Edwardian"
    • Done
  • "Preparation" section, 1st paragraph: "pious hope" seems a quirky choice of phrase. Is this from a reference?
    • It's my phrase, doesn't seem that quirky, but I'll change it if you wish
      • No problems at all with quirky. Just felt it should be cited or quoted if it was from a source.
  • "First season", 2nd paragraph: WP:MOS recommends against the use of whilst
    • Changed to while
  • "Death march" section, 1st paragraph: "100–mile" needs a hyphen, not an en-dash
    • Done
  • Same section: the placement of the photo tends to obscure block quote formatting. Also, I would suggest using {{quote}} rather than html tags.
    • I've tried to reposition the image, but I can't really find a better place for it in this relatively short section. If I move it up it interferes with Amundsen, and breaks the text awkwardly. Is it not acceptable where it is? I've changed the quote tag.
      • If there's no other good place for it, the placement is OK.
  • "Glorification" section, 1st paragraph: Do we know what work the Tennyson line is from? It would be nice to mention it and would make a high value link.
    • Yes, it's from Ulysses. I am organising a link
  • Same section: I would recommend using {{quote}} for the poem
    • Done
  • Same section, 5th paragraph: It's nice to have the present-day equivalent values, but it seems a bit much here. What about the equivalent for the total, and just list the actual amounts for the individual sums?
    • I've done this, but I bet someone else will say they need all the equivalents.
      • I hope not, but whatever the consensus ends up being is fine.
  • "Modern reaction" section: WP:MOS says "Do not place left-aligned images directly below second-level headings"
    • I've moved it down
  • Same section, 2nd paragraph: "recent previous" is an unusual phrase. I also wouldn't characterize 1966 and 1977 as particularly recent in the context of this article.
    • You're right. I changed it to "post-war"
  • Same paragraph: Use the full name of "Franklin" in the link.
    • Done
  • Section titles of "Notes" and "References" seem more standard in my experience
    • I prefer "Notes and references" to cover both in-text citations and footnotes, "Sources" to list books and materials used in compiling the article and cited at least once in the text, and "Further Reading" to list other general books not specifically cited. I believe this is OK in Wikipedia.
      • Perfectly fine
  • I think the items listed in the "Sources" and "Further reading" sections would be well-served to be in {{cite book}} format. Most seem to be missing the location of publication, and Scott's Last Expedition should have an editor listed (is it available online at Google books, Project Gutenberg, or a similar site?). Also, I would link Ranulph Fiennes in this section to his article.
    • My preference is not for {{cite book}}. I have added the editor's name to Scott's journals, and included publishers' locations. I forgot about the requested Fiennes link but I'll do it now.
      • Perfectly fine on all accounts

— Bellhalla (talk) 05:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I hope my responses are OK with you. Please let me have any further comment or opinion. Thank you for your time and trouble. Brianboulton (talk) 12:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

(Note: I re-formatted—but did not change—responses from Brianboulton for easier response by me. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC))

Support – My concerns have been addressed. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comments

All links checked out fine with the tool. All refs and footnotes look good. I corrected two small typos. I'll try to get back in a bit and review more in depth. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• A few more comments

Brian, I did a cursory review of Robert Falcon Scott, from what I see it is excellent. Here are a few comments I have:

1. It says "Scott had followed the conventional career of a naval officer in peacetime Victorian Britain, where opportunities for career advancement were rare" Is the "career advancement were rare" part really true? Was this in the Crane source?

The Crane citation refers to Scott's lack of predilection for polar exploration. Unfortunately I had mis-cited this to p. 92, & have now corrected it to p. 84. I haven't especially cited the lack of career opportunities for Victorian naval officers, this being clear in several narratives. Crane himself refers to the competition for the best postings. However, on reflection "rare" is perhaps too strong, so I have changed it to "limited"

2. "Professionalism was considered less praisworthy" - unless there is a British spelling I don't know about, I think it's "praiseworthy".

You're absolutely right, this was a spelling error.

3. "unforced aptitude" - I read this several times and didn't really get what this phrase means.

It's Huntford's phrase, which is why I cited it. It means, I suppose, natural flair. I've put it in quotes to indicated that it is a quoted phrase.

4. Just a suggestion - a one liner about how difficult the trip back from the farthest south (during Discovery) was. Michael Smith's book, which I cite many times in the Thomas Crean article, says he journey home became "a desperate race against time, with the trio constantly hungry and scurvy beginning to take a grip", and it's Smith's opinion that "one lengthy blizzard at this critical stage, confining them to their tent, would probably have killed them". From this account it appears they almost died on the way home - did you get this impression from other sources?

Maybe Smith is laying it on a bit, for dramatic effect? I dont know. The march is covered in some detail in Discovery Expedition, and I don't really want to extend the Scott article with another lengthy description. I have added a bit, to emphasise the arduous nature of the march, and I think that's sufficient for this article.

5. "At the end of the expedition it took the combined efforts of two relief ships and liberal use of explosives to free Discovery from the ice". Smith's book says that after all the blasting was done there was still 2 miles of ice between the Discovery and the rescue ships. Then the ice suddenly broke up and drifted out to sea. So I think your version implies they used explosives to free the ship, when in fact in the end, they were just lucky that the ice conditions changed. I could add the Smith citation if you like.

Nearly all the accounts of the Discovery's escape differ to some extent, but they all refer to explosives, and I think that in this article my one-line description will do.

6. There is a quote from Scott's The Voyage of the Discovery (p. 170) printed in the Michael Smith book which captures Scott's own admission of their inadequate preparation. You can decide to fit it in if you like: "But at this time our ignorance was deplorable; we did not know how much or what proportions would be required as regards the food, how to use our cookers, how to put up our tents, or even how to put on our clothes. Not a single article of the outfit had been tested and amid the general ignorance which prevailed the lack of system was painfully apparent in everything." This quote is really astonishing for someone in charge of the lives of 50 men!

Yes, I read this quote in Voyage of the Discovery. It relates to the first sentence of the second "Discovery" paragraph. The quote is a bit long, but I have inserted a footnote which refers to it.

If you would like me to add any of the above material from the Michael Smith book and cite it, I'll gladly do so. Zatoichi26 (talk) 03:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful suggestions and comments, which as you can see I have largely adopted.

Brianboulton (talk) 11:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Support Comment - another well-written and balanced article. I'm close to supporting though I have some quibbles with the polar journey - obviously you've tried not to over dramatize it, but it comes off as somewhat dull and a little fatalistic as a result, as if they knew it was hopeless from the point they turned round.

OK, but you rather argue against your own case by altering Death march to Last march (which I agree is better). Anyway, I've altered the first sentence of this section, and I think that further changes lower down will give it a bit more life, although it is basically a record of a solemn and indeed tragic sequence of events.

• Since Wilson theorized that Evans' death had been caused in part from a brain injury incurred during one of his falls the article should mention both the diagnosis and the falls

This has been done, by alterations in the text and by extending a footnote.

• Evan's decline was more marked than suggested. Scott doesn't seem that concerned for him until the 14th Feb (on the 8th and 9th the party are still relaxed enough to be geologising which in itself is worth mentioning). Even after Evan's death they haven't given up hope of getting back

More marked than suggested? I had said "rapid decline". As to your comment about when Scott first expressed concern for Evans: 23rd Jan "Evans is a good deal run down", 30th Jan "Evans is losing heart", 4th Feb Evans is "dull and incapable" and 6th Feb "Evans is the chief anxiety". I have extended the section dealing with Evans's decline and death, but I've left out the geologising, otherwise the section begins to get unbalanced.

Sorry, that wasn't very clear. I meant that you imply his decline mirrors the descent of the Beardmore (from 7 Feb), but Scott is only really anxious about him in this stage of the journey from 14 Feb (worse case...giving us serious anxiety). We then get no mention on 15 Feb, then the whole entry dedicated to him on the 16th and then the death on the 17th. I suggested the inclusion of the geologising breaks to suggest that they were by no means worn out (quote from 9 Feb) and to get away from the "Death March" feel.

• from then on...the party’s fortunes descended into tragedy - does this suggest that Evans' death wasn't tragic? Poor old Evans.

I agree, I've amended the wording here.

• I'd think the frostbite, snow blindness and injuries are worth mentioning rather than just a vague deteriorating physical condition.

Yes, I've done this.

• The diary entry on 29th March is followed by a "Last Entry" (which we assume is made on the 29th, but there is no way to know for certain).

I've slightly altered this bit so as not to imply any certainty about when Scott ceased writing.

• As far as I know only one of the letters is dated and some can be dated by the circumstances outlined in them, but there is nothing to suggest he was writing after the 24th

Covered in above

• Perhaps Scott of the Antarctic (1948 film) is worth mentioning in the "Glorification" section.

I don't particularly like the film, and the linked wikipedia article is inadequate. But as an example of Scott-worship continuing into the post-war period, I've mentioned it.

No, me neither, but it probably brought the story to a new audience (and it was on TV today)

• There are a couple of odd adjective choices too: was the RGS's hope for the Terra-Nova expedition really "pious"? Is Shackleton's main trait "bravado"?

Another reviewer asked about "pious". The sense is one of "well-intentioned, but probably vain". But rather than having to keep explaining this to audiences of raised eyebrows, I've deleted it. As to bravado, I simply typed in the wrong word. I meant bravura.

I've never come across that meaning, so I've been educated, but it is probably wise to remove it as you have done.

Yomangani^talk 12:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your continuing interest in these articles. My main problem I had with these points was trying not to extend what is already a fairly long article with "expedition" details. I have attempted to write a biographical article of Scott, without falling into a reprise of the Terra Nova Expedition, hence my glossing over of some details. You will see from the above what I have done, and I hope that these meet your concerns. Do get back to me if they don't. Brianboulton (talk) 16:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you were trying to do (and you only had to see the article before you started work on it to see how bad it could be), but the Terra Nova Expedition is really what defines him to us and I felt it was a little too understated in the final section. Yomangani^talk 17:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Support Slight oppose mainly due to a few small glitches. Also one place where I feel a source citation is needed. When these get cleared up I'll be happy to support.

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 23:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Lead - third paragraph. The second sentence is quite convoluted. Consider rewording/breaking it up. I get the drift of the paragraph, but it's a bit awkward.

Can't really see a way of breaking it up, so I've simplified it, without loss of intended meaning. See what you think.

• Lead, last paragraph, sentence starting "But he sometimes had less easy..." I have two concerns with. One is that "had less easy relations" phrasing, which is awkward. The other is the "each of his expedition second-in-commands" which might be wordy. Since he only did two major expeditions, I would say "and his expedition second-in-commands." since to me each implies more than just two.

I've re-jigged the sentence, and adopted your suggestions re second-in-commands.

• Maybe I'm missing something but why is it important to mention that his father was "of Outlands, a country house at ..." Wouldn't it be simpler to say his father was a resident of Stoke Damerel, near Devonport, Devonshire?

I'll deal with this and your next three points together, as they are all connected. I thought that it would be a good idea to have some information about Scott's family background, so I did my research and wrote this section. After your comments I looked at it again, and...you're absolutely right, it's magazine stuff! What was I thinking? "No portents clouded...." indeed! - I blush in shame. Anyhow, I've rewritten the section, reducing it considerably but at the same time adding some information about the naval tradition in the Scott family. I hope you see this as a real improvement.

• Okay, I'm unclear who is being referred to in the sentence starting "From the testimony of John's daughter .." is it John or Robert? If it's John, I'm not sure it's needed to know that John resented his brothers, since this is an article on Robert.

Dealt with above

• Early life section, family background subsection, the sentence starting "His financial position later..." is very long and wordy. Consider cutting it back some?

Dealt with above

• Same section and subsection, that first paragraph is wordy and could use some pruning. It reads more like a magazine article than a encyclopedia entry ("No portents, however , clouded ..." is an example)

Dealt with above

• Another example of the above is in the Early naval career section, last paragraph "Scott now had the additional weight of domestic responsiblity to spur him forward on the path ..."

In the same vein I've changed the end of this sentence, with a fully cited reference to his concern to get promotion.

• Between expeditions section, Popular hero subsection, have we introduced the RN abbreviation for the Royal Navy yet? If not, it should be done before using RN.

Now done & properly explained

• Modern reaction subsection, third paragraph, the last bits are uncited and probably should be cited as they are opinion ("further attempted vindication of Scott" is definitely opinion)

I've cited the "credibility of Huntford's evidence" to the appropriate pages of Fiennes's book. As to the Susan Solomon sentence, I've reworded this so that I can include her own statement of the book's purpose. The book's cover calls it a "vindication of Scott", but you can't cite a cover, can you?

Looks pretty good to me. I did a bit of copyediting, where I saw some places to cut wordiness. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Please let me know of any remaining concerns and I'll do my best to deal with them Brianboulton (talk) 20:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Everything addressed. Looks better! Changing to support. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved issues from Maralia (talk) 03:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments I made some copyedit fixes, with rather extensive edit summaries. Some remaining issues:

• Discovery is mentioned in the lead - in italics, without context - when only the expedition, not the ship, has been introduced (also, if I'm not mistaken, there is no link to the ship article at all here)

I found this quite awkward to fix. I was using the ship's name Discovery as shorthand for the expedition, to save having the full Discovery Expedition appearing in successive sentences. Scott was both leader of the expedition and commander of the ship, so how about: "...to apply for the Discovery command", with a link to the ship? That's what I've done. I've also put in note (1) to explain the expedition's commonly-used name.

• It's quite incongruous to equate an education with a ship ("Education HMS Britannia" in the infobox); if you're trying to emphasize that he received very little schooling aside from his naval training, can the infobox refer to the cadet program, perhaps, instead of a vessel?

I've done as you suggest. All potential naval officers of Scott's generation ceased normal schooling at 13 and underwent training on one of the Royal Navy training ships. HMS Britannia eventually became the Royal Naval College, Dartmouth, but not until many years after Scott.

• "Parents John Scott and Hannah Scott" - why not just John and Hannah Scott?

That's what it now says - did someone fix it?

• "For example his reluctance to rely on dogs, against the advice of expert ice travellers such as Nansen," - this wording is a bit muddled. 'despite' rather than 'against' might help clear it up.

Yes, "despite" makes better sense

• "before being sent to Stubbington House, a cramming establishment preparing candidates for entrance to the naval training ship HMS Britannia." - 'preparing' is an odd choice of verb tense in this context

"preparing for the entrance examinations" is what I meant, and I've altered accordingly.

• "his examinations for Sub-lieutenant," - I think more proper capitalization would be 'Sub-Lieutenant'

Yes, done

• "He focuses on the period 1889–90" - isn't 'focusses' the preferred spelling for commonwealth english?

My Chambers English Dictionary gives "focuses" as primary spelling and "focusses" as alternative, so I've left it as it is

• "Before and after the appointment was confirmed there were committee battles over the scope of Scott's responsibilities, since the Royal Society was pressing for a scientist to be in overall charge." - the end of this is awkward; perhaps '...responsibilities, with the Royal Society pressing to put a scientist in charge of the expedition.'

Yes, this sentence needed sorting out. I've dropped the "Before and after the appointment" as unnecessary, used your form of words thereafter, and added a bit on the end about Scott's ship command. It now has the sense I was aiming at.

• "In contrast to his naivety" - isn't 'naivete' (with or without diacritics) a far more common spelling?

Again, my CED tells me that naivety is the primary spelling with the others as acceptable alternatives, so again I've left it.

• "public receptions, lectures, and the writing of the expedition record The Voyage of the Discovery." - I think elsewhere you have not used serial commas

I've deleted it.

• Please review capitalization on Terra Nova Expedition and Discovery Expedition throughout the article for consistency

I think this is now done, but I'll keep looking.

• For note 68 (SLE p. 551), please clarify whether it's Vol I or II

Vol I entered

• In note 70 ("The researches of Susan Solomon"), can you rephrase to avoid the weird plural 'the researches"?

Altered to "Research by...."

Thanks for another fine article on a great explorer. Maralia (talk) 18:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Please let me know of any further problems. And thanks for the copyedits. Brianboulton (talk) 22:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Support Well done yet again, sir. Maralia (talk) 03:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support—oh, this is very good. Congrats. But I haven't gone through it in sufficient detail, so I may make a few comments later. TONY (talk) 14:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.