Talk:Halkett boat

Overlinks

Really? Maybe, rubber and fishing. The rest, I believe, are on the same level as knapsack :) I won't push the point, but I am a big fan of WP:BTW. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

In the article, yes; in the lead, no. The point of the lead is to provide a short and easily-scanned summary, and the links should be kept to a minimum and only be those where there's a realistic chance that the reader will need explanation as to what they are. "Knapsack" is an archaism which readers in most places couldn't be expected to understand—I used it instead of "backpack" because the latter term hadn't yet been introduced—but I can't imagine there are any readers who don't know what an oar is. – iridescent 10:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Image question

You mention that their still is an extant boat. Why isn't there a picture of it, the article seems very incomplete without it? This sounds like something where either someone goes and takes a picture at the mentioned museum, or an editor contacts the curator and asks for an image to be released. Sadads (talk) 11:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Because it's extremely ugly and would add nothing to the article, and this article is already extremely cluttered with diagrams. The surviving boat isn't a pristine relic; it's a shrivelled brown lump that spent 80 years patching the roof of a Kirkwall timberyard, and looks it. It's barely recognisable as a boat; it resembles nothing so much as one of King Kong's droppings. – iridescent 12:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Ugliness is no reason to exclude the image. That is an important part of the information that should be made available to readers. If it is on display at a museum, it probably looks much better than that image, which we wouldn't be able to use because of copyright issues. You need to contact the museum or find someone to go check it out. You have obviously not explored this route, but should do so to make the article more complete. Sadads (talk) 12:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Ugliness is no reason to exclude the image. That it would add nothing to the article, and that there is no space for it and thus would mean sacrificing a (far more useful) one of John and Peter Halkett's drawings, is. This is an article about Halkett boats as they were in use, not as they are now. – iridescent 12:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

So, wait a minute. Iridescent does all this hard work on an awesome article that's actually been recommended as further reading by an expert in the field, and you're giving him a rough time over a single photograph? You have no reason to take that attitude, especially when Iri has given several very good reasons not to include such a photograph (to wit: would remove a far more useful illustration, not enough room). Besides, the surviving boat looks terrible, and I can frankly see no way that having a photo of it would improve the article. Skinny87 (talk) 14:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, just saw this thread after adding a photo of the boat at Stromness Museum so I removed it. I also took a photo of a diorama of John Rae using a Halkett boat. Are either of these photos of use to the article? LittleDwangs (talk) 16:39, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• 
• 

Not FA quality

Let me start this discussion where it will probably lead. If this article was handed to me (as a professional editor) I would substantially rewrite it, making dozens of changes, especially to the overall presentation. There's a considerable amount of vague description.

Statements such as "widely praised" and "the market for Halkett's designs was limited" are peacock and original research — and the article is replete with them. It appears that the editors of this article read a few accounts of the boat, and synthesized an article that was not based on personal experience or any particular understanding of the subject.

Material such as this is off-topic:

"Franklin's three-year exploration of the northern coast of Canada in search of the Northwest Passage had ended in disaster amid accusations of murder and cannibalism, with 11 of the 20 members of the group killed and the survivors reduced to eating lichen, their own boots, and the remains of rotten carcasses abandoned by wolves"

Yes, editors have put hard work into this article, and yes, it is worth reading. But no, not anything one would read in the Encyclopedia Britannica. Not an article Wikipedia should advertise to academic critics as being exceptional. Truly, Piano non troppo (talk) 22:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

As a thought before I go to bed... with the greatest of respect, I couldn't disagree more. I'd never have heard of this before if it wasn't for wiki and the editor's hard work, and I can't really imagine a wiki or FAC policy that this 'violates' or ignores. I don't intend to play the policy game here, but I won't be agreeing with your assessment, now or in the future (whatever you say). I might be vaguely inclined to say that Iridescent should have mentioned the leaking mentioned in the FAC, but aside from that..... nada. What exactly would you expect to read in the Encyclopaedia Britannica (bearing in mind of course that wikipedia isn't, and never will be, that publication)? This article is a perfect example of what wiki is all about. Ranger Steve (talk) 22:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, Russell Potter seems to disagree. Nev1 (talk) 22:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Nev1, Russell Potter is an authority on the Franklin expedition, not on Wikipedia goals or policy or, necessarily on the Halkett Boat. Piano non troppo (talk) 08:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Really I have to agree with Piano non troppo, this article is really poor, covering things in a manner that sometimes is aggressive and other time ORish or Peacock related. This article, among other things, misses including the only extent example of the boat amongst its images, covers topics which really deserve their own page, such as the designer, etc. Sadads (talk) 23:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that consensus is currently against Piano non troppo, "aggressive" is not an adjective I've seen used to describe an encyclopaedia article before, could you explain that? I of course disagree with your other points: context needs to be added, hence info on the designer (I would have thought that was obvious), and your point above about the image has been adequately dealt with. Nev1 (talk) 23:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

This is exactly the point I hoped to bring up. The article was introduced as a Featured Article candidate on May 25 by an author who had a major hand in writing it. Five days later, with comments from at least five other editors who helped write the article, (Parrot of Doom, hamiltonstone, an odd name, Malleus Fatourum, Johnbod) it was declared a Featured Article. I.e., the people who wrote the article nominated their own work as exceptional. The review process should be changed so that none of the people who made significant contributions should be allowed to vote. Voting your own work is exceptional is a conflict of interest. In this case, it has improperly resulted in an article being elevated to Featured status.Piano non troppo (talk) 08:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

As you appear to disagree with substantial contributors being involved in the review process you should probably exclude yourself from any further involvement, as (even excluding the talk page) you have double the edit count of two of the other involved editors "who helped write the article" (Johnbod's significant contribution, AnOddName's significant decontribution) and the same number as another ( hamiltonstone adds to the article, hamiltonstone takes away from the article). It's true that Parrot of Doom has twice as many edits to the article as you and a quick look at the history will show you how substantial they are. Malleus did some copyediting, but many of his twenty-odd edits are formatting. Japplang supported promotion and has no contributions to the article (not even a reversion, shame). The argument that the promotion of this article was incorrect because "people who wrote the article nominated their own work as exceptional" doesn't hold water, doesn't highlight any flaws in the FAC process (though there are many), and doesn't address any problems with the article itself. Yomangani^talk 11:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

And it's actually a shame I "decontribut[ed]" that, because I can't make a bad joke about the Lt in his exotic dance joint saying "Yo ladies, I got a hot bod and some cool boats. Toss me some bills and let's rough it in the Arctic later if you know what I mean *wink*".

I've so got to find a reliable source for that... --an odd name 11:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm puzzled... I see nothing at WP:FAC that says that "an author who had a major hand in writing it" cannot nominate the article - on the contrary, it states "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to a nomination", which implies that the significant contributors may nominate without consulting each other. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

If you're a "professional editor" Piano, then I'm a Chinese whore living on Mars. Malleus Fatuorum 23:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I have been a full time, professional editor for a Fortune 500 company. I have hundreds of professionally published, peer-reviewed articles (outside of Wiki). I shouldn't have to remind you Fatuorum that a personal attack on another editor is out-of-place. Piano non troppo (talk) 08:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, MF, don't attack yourself. (Of course, you may be a Chinese whore in which case I don't suppose it is an attack, although I would have thought you would have preferred the term "sex-worker") Yomangani^talk 11:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• try taking a page from one of your publications, and don't attack editors by suggesting they're involved in synthesis, while objecting when your honesty is questioned. My involvement in this article is copyediting only. For what it's worth, I think you're talking nonense. Parrot of Doom 11:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• I don't know what you're talking about Piano: i wasn't someone who "helped write the article", i was a reviewer who first came across it at FAC (or possibly at GA, i don't recall) and made constructive improvements as part of the reviewing process. Isn't that supposed to be part of the point of the exercise? hamiltonstone (talk) 23:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• I doubt that I have ever commented on an article at FAC, or GAN, that I haven't edited either during the review or because I was asked to look at it before the review. It never struck me as being "dishonest" to do that, and I certainly never considered that I'd "helped write the article", any more than a janitor helped build the building he's sweeping. I thought this project was supposed to be a collaborative effort. Have the rules of engagement changed? I rather resent this conspiracy accusation. Malleus Fatuorum 23:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

See also Boat

Seriously? Seriously? 86.45.130.146 (talk) 02:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Culled. Ranger Steve (talk) 06:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Linking to a redirect

Iridescent undid my change from linking in the lede to Orcadian (which is a redirect to Orcadians, a list of people from Orkney), to Orkney which seemed like a much better link. Does anyone else feel it is vital to link to the redirect, or is there a better target we could link to? --John (talk) 14:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

India rubber, similarly, is a redirect to natural rubber. --John (talk) 15:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I linked to the redirect (rather than to Orcadians) because I thought it was better, in the context of Rae, to link to "people from Orkney" rather than "the place called Orkney" (Orkney is also linked in there when it occurs as a location, rather than an ethnic group). I linked to the redirect, rather than Orcadians, as I thought there's potential to clean up and split the current rather messy Orcadians into separate parts on Orcadian people, Orcadian culture, Orcadian dialect etc, and this way the link will (hopefully) remain pointed at the right place should the split occur. We don't have a policy against linking to redirects in this kind of situation. I've no strong opinions on the matter if anyone thinks it's better pointed at the place, rather than the people. India rubber is certainly linked correctly; while they currently share an article, India-rubber is definitely not synonymous with natural rubber. – iridescent 15:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

We don't have a policy against linking to redirects - quite so; but we do have a policy against altering such links into the non-redirect form: see WP:NOTBROKEN. I think that the link to Orcadian was perfectly valid - the lede explains concisely end precisely what an Orcadian is, and has less WP:EASTEREGG about it. Not everybody would directly connect Orcadian to Orkney, and could well be surprised to find themselves on a page dealing with an archipelago, where the word "Orcadian" is not explained until the very end of the lede; and indeed the section heading "Orcadians" is directly followed by a note which suggests that the eponymous topic is mainly covered at... Orcadians. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Redrose64. I didn't make the edit because I thought we shouldn't link to redirects, and yes I am aware of NOTBROKEN. I made the edit because I thought the link to Orkney would be of more use to our readers than a redirect to a fairly poor list of people who happen to have some connection with the place. I see Iridescent's rationale that there may be potential to split the article at some point, and, though I don't happen to agree with that rationale, it's not that big a deal. The India rubber one I am less sure of though. --John (talk) 18:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• Pearsall, Judy, ed. (1999). The Concise Oxford Dictionary (Tenth ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 721. ISBN 0 19 860259 6.

India rubber  • n. natural rubber.

That is the whole entry. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I concur, India rubber is just a period term for what we call natural rubber today. My feeling is we should use the modern term (ie link natural rubber); failing that India rubber would also be an option. But I see no merit in linking to the redirect on this one. --John (talk) 20:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

If ref. 6 ("Official Descriptive and Illustrated Catalogue of the Great Exhibition of the Works of Industry of All Nations") uses the actual words "India rubber", then it is quite proper for the article to do similarly. However, I don't have a copy to check. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

It's perfectly fine to call it that, if that's what the source says. Less useful to link it though, because, unlike the Orkney example, I don't think this could ever plausibly become a standalone article. This would imply my second suggestion above. --John (talk) 05:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The thing is, if the words "India rubber" are given a piped link, the user will be taken directly to a page titled "Natural rubber", which might confuse them, but if the words "India rubber" are linked as they stand, the user will be taken to the same page, but additionally bearing the text

(Redirected from India rubber)

which explains why they were taken there. It is indeed unlikely that India rubber will ever be a separate article from Natural rubber; but that's not a reason in itself. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

So, to avoid confusion to the user, I've changed the "...redirects here" hatnote to read "Rubber" and "India rubber" redirect here. – B.hotep •talk• 10:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Huh, learn something every day—I always thought India-rubber was the product of Ficus elastica while natural rubber was the product of Hevea brasiliensis. If they've become synonymous, then obviously we only need one article, although I agree with B.hotep that it should remain the redirect. Our friends at Google have put the Great Exhibition catalogue online; the Halkett boat is on p.783. (The entry does specifically use "India rubber" rather than just "rubber".) – iridescent 13:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

Halkett boat appears to be subject to obscene vandalism. It should prhaps be ptotected, and anonymous editors should be banned. Peter Horn User talk 16:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Ain't gonna happen. By TFA standards this one got off remarkably lightly. – iridescent 16:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Most vandalism to a TFA article happens when it's still prominent on the main page - and this one ceased to be so after 23:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC). --Redrose64 (talk) 18:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Reference 14

The url used in the reference 14 ([1]) is not available anymore. It should be fixed. Thank you--Arnaugir (talk) 11:58, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

So why not fix it? What did your last slave die of? Malleus Fatuorum 18:11, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

No need to speak to me like this, I only tried to help by pointing out what was missing. You are right I could have searched it before, I didn't have much time and I didn't find it so I thought it was better to say something than nothing. I've fixed it now. But again, no need to be that rude. cheers--Arnaugir (talk) 21:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Halkett boat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120425161825/http://resource.canadashistory.ca/media/pdf/34-4-Spr-955-p46-51.pdf to http://resource.canadashistory.ca/media/pdf/34-4-Spr-955-p46-51.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120425161825/http://resource.canadashistory.ca/media/pdf/34-4-Spr-955-p46-51.pdf to http://resource.canadashistory.ca/media/pdf/34-4-Spr-955-p46-51.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120425161825/http://resource.canadashistory.ca/media/pdf/34-4-Spr-955-p46-51.pdf to http://resource.canadashistory.ca/media/pdf/34-4-Spr-955-p46-51.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:33, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Halkett boat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706170324/http://www.cac-accr.ca/pdf/e-cac-conference-2001.pdf to http://www.cac-accr.ca/pdf/e-cac-conference-2001.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC)