Wikipedia:Peer review/Discovery Expedition/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Discovery Expedition[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has undergone considerable development in the last few weeks to bring it towards FA standard. I have therefore withdrawn its GA nomination as I feel a peer review is more appropriate.

Thanks, Brianboulton (talk) 17:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some brief MoS things:

  • Label the External links
I've done this - will expand the SPRI label when I can access the website, temporarily unavailable.
  • The logic for the last 3 entries in See also isn't clear to me; do they belong there, can they be worked into the article, do they need an explanation? See WP:GTL.
The Winter Quarters Bay link is of interest and I've added a short explanation. The other two are very tangental and I've dropped them
I've added a few conversions, and a couple of nbsp, but I couldn't find an unlinked month-day combination
  • I'm not sure on logical quotes, WP:PUNC on this one: Their goal:"To get as far south in a straight line on the Barrier ice as we can, reach the Pole if possible, or find some new land".[28] And missing spaces after colon. Also check WP:PUNC on the quote following The instructions concerning the geographical objective became more specific: ...
On the first, I've dropped the colon to achieve a smoother reading: Their goal was "to get as far south..." I'm not sure what your query is with the second quote, it seems OK to me and I can't spot any MOS objection
  • There are some WP:MOS#Captions issues, full sentences get punctuation at the end, sentence fragments do not.
When is a sentence full? Let's say when it contains a verb. I've dealt with the captions on that basis
  • Typo? ... Commander in the following terms: *to determine ...
Corrected
  • I don't know if any MOS guideline covers punctuation of this, best check: ... appointment of Dr J W Gregory, head of ...
I've added a missing comma, and more importantly I've corrected the details concerning Gregory - Prof at Melbourne University, but what exactly was I being asked to check?
  • WP:MOSNUM, don't begin sentence with number: 13 years later Scott, by now ...
Changed
  • Review, sometimes you use final two digits only, sometimes not: In 1839–43 James Clark ...
I think the convention is that when year ranges are in the same century one uses the two-digit form, like 1839-43, & I have now adopted this throughout.

I didn't have time to read the article, but these are a few small items. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for finding time for this and let me know if I've met your requirementsBrianboulton (talk)
  • Some minor points
    • Refs 32 and 33 can be combined.
They actually deal with quite different points, 32 with Wilson's evasiveness over scurvy and 33 with Shackleton disputing Scott's version of his being carried on the sledge, so I think they should remain separate
I meant combined in the same way ref 20 is, using the "ref name" function. The two different points can still each have a citation, but it will help keep the references list short. Epbr123 (talk) 18:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. I'll check for others Brianboulton (talk) 20:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm still not able to see how 32 and 33 can be combined. 32 cites Crane, p. 226-27 and adds a footnote. 33 is simply a footnote, that has nothing to do with the Crane page citation. I have combined 34 and what was 35 - did you mean your note to refer to these? I haven't found any other combinations Brianboulton (talk) 16:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I meant the Crane, p. 233 cites. The ref numbering changed since I made the comment [1]. Epbr123 (talk) 17:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "8th February" - ordinal suffixes aren't used in dates, per WP:MOSNUM#Dates
Corrected
Have I not used ellipses correctly? They seem OK to me MOS-wise
There should be spaces around the ellipses, unless the ellipses were part of the original text being quoted. Epbr123 (talk) 18:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One ellipsis is part of the quoted text, the others aren't. I have dealt with these Brianboulton (talk) 20:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed 8 to eight. Thanks for taking the time. Plese let me know if you aren't satisfied Brianboulton (talk) 17:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 03:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have used this to carry out more tidying and editing of content and I think the article is now pretty well in its finished form. I'm still checking a few small details. Helpful comments all appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 18:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Discovery_Expedition/archive1&oldid=1078819203"