This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Antarctica, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Antarctica on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AntarcticaWikipedia:WikiProject AntarcticaTemplate:WikiProject AntarcticaAntarctica articles
This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Overseas Territories, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Overseas Territories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.British Overseas TerritoriesWikipedia:WikiProject British Overseas TerritoriesTemplate:WikiProject British Overseas TerritoriesBritish Overseas Territories articles
Latest comment: 1 year ago8 comments2 people in discussion
I'm a bit confused why we'd be adding more images to this article, which is at the moment fairly well-balanced between text and image. The sections are all illustrated, and it's far from obvious why we'd need any more. There is obviously the possibility of extending some of the descriptions from suitable sources; in that case, it is imaginable that some new point made by the new text might one day need to be supported by some new image. Until then, if new sources offer interesting new insights into the expedition, of course these can be cited and added. But crowding the article with images and sandwiching the text must not be an option. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:27, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
I do think this image is a useful addition. There is no other image of Mount Erebus, and Davis was a principal illustrator of the expedition (a numer of engravings from his work are in Ross's account) so there should be at least one of his images in the article. I take you point about sandwiching. I've added the image back, but on the right, and have moved the ship image up to the "Ships" paragraph, which is where it really belongs. Let me know what you think? Kognos (talk) 12:35, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
Firstly, that is still edit-warring, adding something already in dispute; adding your views to a discussion is not the same as obtaining consensus.
Proposal 1: Mount Erebus, from a painting by John E. Davis
Right, now, let's see. You're proposing an image of Mt Erebus, by John E. Davis. However, the mountain is not mentioned in the "Voyage" section. Instead, the reader is told that the crew saw "a low white line extending from its eastern extreme point as far as the eye could discern", i.e. an ice shelf, something not discernible in the image.
Proposal 2, something a bit flatter, but seemingly not the Ross Ice Shelf either. It seems to say 'Mount Sabine and Possession Island'. Hmm. Other proposals in the text (not illus. here)
Alternatives could be another image by Davis, if we can find a reasonably relevant one. The only other one on Commons that looks vaguely reasonable is of Mount Sabine and Possession Island, a bit flatter but not ideal for the text either. Images not yet on Commons include "Cape Crozier and Mount Terror" from the same book, not really ideal either. The image of Mount Minto and Mount Adam seems to be the only one that shows anything like an ice shelf, so it might be the best. It is marked "Sketched by Dr Hooker". If we want mountains and shelf it might do. Or we could add another quotation, perhaps. I really don't think that shoving an Erebus image in there with no connection to the text is a sensible thing to do. Anyway, let us wait until consensus is reached, please. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:18, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
Hmm. Mount Erebus is mentioned in the Voyage section, in the third sentence: "Mount Erebus, on Ross Island, was named after one ship and Mount Terror after the other." Also, the image has both ships. Kognos (talk) 16:40, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
So it is. I've written a caption that ties the image into the text. But this absolutely wasn't the procedure for extending an article. The cited text comes first; the images support it; and changes are by consensus. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:52, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I think there should be a annotation denoting the difference between the two expeditions, especially since they had the same names of ships (Erebus & terror) and how close they were to each other (time wise, 1839-1843, 1845-???)
maybe it’s already in the article, if so it should be clarified.
Coming from a casual reader, definitely made me do a double take and still am confused about the connection- if any between the 2; especially in regards if that these were also the same ships used in the Franklin expedition. 98.97.61.177 (talk) 03:42, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
