Talk:Terra Nova Expedition/GA 1

Nomination for good article status on hold

The article could use more images, considering its length and subject matter. A map would help to tie in the list of team members. Aside from some minor grammatical fixes the lead section needs expansion and improvement; essentially it should be a brief version of the article itself so try to mention the teams, some specific experiments/explorations, Roald Amundsen, etc. too. This also applies to factors contributing to the failure, which should be mentioned rather than referred to another article. Otherwise the article is very close, so I'm putting this on hold. Anynobody 03:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Failed, notes

When reviewing the article I used these guidelines:
1. Clear prose, including proper spelling, grammar, and clear language. Also look for proper formatting and organization of the article, with appropriate use of wikilinks, sections, table of contents, and general organization as spelled out in the areas of the Manual of Style outlined in the Good Article criteria.
2. Adequate referencing, preferably with the use of either inline or Harvard citations.
3. Appropriate broadness in coverage of the topic.
4. Written from a neutral point of view.
5. If images are used, that they are free images, or if they are copyright, that their use is covered by Wikipedia's fair use guidelines.

Prose: There are too many lists in the article including information of minor relation to this expedition. (For example, the list of Antarctic Expeditions is unnecessary when it could just be said that Scott and several others had been on expeditions there before. The Terra Nova movements is also an excess list) The list of members could be kept if more info about important members is given. An example is Edward Adrian Wilson whom more could be said of than "Chief Scientist and Zoologist." Anynobody 01:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)