Talk:Polaris expedition/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

I have started my review, and I will post further comments here either later today or tomorrow. Finetooth (talk) 23:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is the review, although I'm looking for more about the map license question. If you know the answer or solution, please let me know, and I will do the same if I learn something useful. I'll wait a bit before putting the article on hold.

This is well-written, stable, well-illustrated, factually accurate and verifiable, broad in its coverage, and neutral. It's almost to GA status, but I have a few concerns that need to be addressed.

Images *It would be better to move Emil Bessels to the left side of the page so that he looks in rather than out. Ditto for Captain Budington. Budington will also have to go down a bit on the left to avoid bumping against a second-level head per the Manual of Style.

• • Done. Zatoichi26 (talk) 01:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
• MOS:IMAGES suggests using "thumb" for most image sizes rather than forcing the pixel width to a set quantity. The lead image is an exception, at least up to 300px, and you might argue that the map needs to be bigger than "thumb". The mug shots and the others should probably be thumb unless you have a special reason for doing otherwise. You can check out MOS:IMAGES to see the list of exceptions.
  • Done - except I left the Tyson's Party photo at 400px, because I think it's better to be able to see faces in the photo. Just my personal preference, if you strongly feel otherwise I can set it to default size.Zatoichi26 (talk) 01:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
• The licenses on all the images but the map look fine to me. I think you should replace the map's PD license with a self-GFDL license, and add to the phrase "Public domain Government of Canada map available at Natural Resources Canada website" something like "my modifications licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License". Also, the base map from the Atlas of Canada should probably be licensed as PD-Canada, if in fact it is PD. I say "if" because of the Natural Resources Canada (NRC) caveat here about commercial use. The NRC asks that commercial users get written permission before using the map. This goes into a gray area that might or might not be a problem.

Lead

• "The Polaris expedition (1871) was led by the American Charles Francis Hall, with the aim to be the first expedition to reach the North Pole." - Suggestion: "The Polaris expedition (1871) was led by the American Charles Francis Hall, who wanted it to be the first expedition to reach the North Pole."
  • I changed it, but used the word "intended". I think "wanted" is maybe not formal or definitive enough. Zatoichi26 (talk) 01:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Agreed. "Intended" is better. Finetooth (talk) 19:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
• "A later exhumation of his body in 1968" - Suggestion: delete "later", and start with "An exhumation... "
  • Agreed, "later" is redundant since 1968 is definitely "later" than 1871! Zatoichi26 (talk) 01:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Origins"

• A good rule of thumb is to source every paragraph, except perhaps in the lead, as well as every set of statistics, every unusual claim, or anything apt to be challenged. The first paragraph in this section should have a source. Ditto for three of the four paragraphs of the Personnel section.
  • I added citations to first paragraph of "Origins" but decided it was unnecessary (redundant) to cite "Charles Francis Hall with the Polaris in 1871-73" since this is the subject of the article. Added more citations to first 3 paragraphs of "Personnel". The first sentence came from Parry, unfortunately I had to return book to library; if this is going to be a problem I can reword or remove this. Also the statement that Budington and Tyson had decades of experience between them is also from Parry, it is certainly implied in Berton but not strongly enough to cite. Anyway I don't think this is controversial.Zatoichi26 (talk) 03:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Personnel

• "Budington and Hall had quarrelled over accusations that Budington denied permission... " - "Accusations" doesn't seem like the right word". Would it be better to say, "Budington and Hall had quarrelled because Budington had denied permission... "?
  • Done. Zatoichi26 (talk) 01:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

New York to Upernavik

• "In another open display of dissent, the ship's boilers had been tampered with by one of the crew. The special blubber-fired boilers had disappeared, apparently thrown overboard." - It's not clear why the crew would throw the boilers overboard. Did they dislike blubber or handling it or smelling it or something of that sort? Was the action perhaps meant as anti-Inuit?
  • This came from Parry, unfortunately he does not provide any further information about it other than the boilers disappeared when at sea, and Hall didn't authorize their removal. Zatoichi26 (talk) 01:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Perhaps User:Clevelander96 knows of something that gives further detail. If not, it's OK as is. Finetooth (talk) 19:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Polar preparations and Hall's death

• Wikilink Chronometers?
  • Done. Zatoichi26 (talk) 01:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Attempt at North Pole

• "clear that shipboard routine was falling by the wayside" - Slang. Suggestion: "clear that shipboard routine was becoming chaotic"
  • I changed it to "routine was breaking down" - let me know what you think. Zatoichi26 (talk) 02:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
    • That sounds good. Finetooth (talk) 19:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Inquiry

• "... Dr. Bessel was the best practicable under the circumstances" - Should that be Bessels, or did the source spell it without the final "s"?
  • Source spelled it "Bessel", so I added [sic]. Zatoichi26 (talk) 02:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
• Wikilink quinine?
  • Done. Zatoichi26 (talk) 02:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Notes

• In the "Notes" section, is there a special reason to list Mowat as Farley Mowat? If not, these should all be changed to Mowat.
  • Done. Zatoichi26 (talk) 02:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

References

• Generally bolding is used in the text only for the title words in the first line of the lead. The bolded book titles should be in italics instead.
  • Done. Zatoichi26 (talk) 02:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth (talk) 03:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Jappalang has kindly answered my question about the map license, and indeed the base map appears to be under copyright in the U.S. and therefore not suitable for storage on the Commons or Wikipedia. The full explanation is complicated, and to save space I won't copy it here. You can see it and Jappalang's suggestions for an alternative base map on my talk page near the bottom under the heading "Re:Image license question". I know how much trouble it is to make a map and to lose it over a copyright issue, because that is exactly what happened to one of my Antarctic exploration maps, the base map for which was under copyright in the U.K. You have my sympathy. The next question is, do you want to remove the map and continue with the GA, or do you want to re-create the map using a new base map? I think making a new map is preferable because it is a good map and highly useful in the article. Please let me know what you plan to do. Finetooth (talk) 16:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

A little disappointing - but shouldn't take me long to fix up another map. I'll use the 1915 map from the Canadian gov't site instead.Zatoichi26 (talk) 03:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I've reviewed and struck most of the requested changes. Still remaining are the map and possibly something more about the blubber boiler. I noticed something further on the latest read-through. The last citation, #71, lacks a date, accessdate, and publisher. I see that it's a section of a book. It would be good to add these details if you can. Finetooth (talk) 19:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I have updated the map. I'm not sure what book the citation #71 was from, could not verify publisher or date, so I cited Berton instead which also talks about Bessels being the prime suspect. Zatoichi26 (talk) 02:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Everything looks fine, and I've promoted the article to GA. Congratulations on a job well-done. Finetooth (talk) 05:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)