Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SY Aurora's drift/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:19, 11 April 2009 [1].

SY Aurora's drift

[edit]
Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 23:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mainstream polar heroes hog the limelight, but sometimes it's the behind-the-scenes people who have the best stories. Here's a seafaring tale that deserves to be known. Thanks to Finetooth for the map, Jappalang for image and other advice, and several conscientious peer reviewers. Brianboulton (talk) 23:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose because article has zero references in the lead. This is very bad style. TeH nOmInAtOr (talk) 01:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an actionable oppose per the featured article criteria. There is no requirement for citations in an article's lead, as it is just a summary of the article's content. Maralia (talk) 01:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maralia is right. It's an editor's preference as to whether the lead should be referenced. I tend to not cite lead sections when I write articles because I focus on presenting uncontroversial facts there, and expand on those—with citation—in the article's text. Looking through my current FAs in alphabetical order, I have the following number of citations before the TOC: 4, 1, 3, 6, 3, 5, 5, 5. Most of those citations are for statistics or material that isn't repeated in the article's main body. Sceptre (talk) 17:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to WP:REFTOOLS, the ref name Tyler-Lewis_125–27 is used more than once to name different refs; it should only name 1 ref
I had to look up SY to see what it meant. "Steam Yacht" it seems. Might I suggest that a spelled-out version be added to the lead in the first handy place? Maybe the second instance (third sentence of the lead) would be a better place than the first instance, which would extend and dilute the bolding. A link to steam yacht would then be possible and useful. Finetooth (talk) 16:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved the title to "SY Aurora's drift, and linked steam yacht in the lead. I don't know how to italicise in an article's name, or if this can be done. There is no standard way of referring to this incident beyond either "X's drift" or "Drift of the X". The chapter in Shackleton's book is called "The Aurora's drift", which is I think what led me to the former title. I agree this one is better, though. Brianboulton (talk) 21:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Due to technical limitations, page titles can't be italicized. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with comments:
  • This sentence is awkward: "Mackintosh was anxious that the depot-laying work should begin at once – the party was three weeks behind schedule – [8]and decided to take charge of this himself."
  • The last sentence of "Release" section gives coordinates but this is useless info to people like me who do not know what this means. Can you elaborate a bit on what those coordinates mean like tell us how many miles from something it represents? Otherwise it all looks great.NancyHeise talk 02:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have reordered the rather clumsy sentence you have spotted, getting rid of the intrusive dashes; hope it's better now. I have also identified the coordinates respectively as latitude and longitude, and have linked these terms. The map shows the 14 March position in relation to the Antarctic, Australia and New Zealand landmasses; I hope the situation is now clearer to you. Stenhouse estimates that the drift covered 1,600 miles from Cape Evans, but doesn't give the distance to port at the time of release – it can be worked out from the coordinates, but that would be OR. Thank you for your comments and support. Brianboulton (talk) 08:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's fine - neat article, I found it very interesting. NancyHeise talk 11:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I was one of the peer reviewers, and my concerns have been addressed except for a new half-quibble. Should the mention of "steam yacht" and "whaler" also appear in the "Background" section of the article so that the lead can be said to summarize the main text rather than introducing material not mentioned in the main text? It would slide in easily as "This former Arctic whaler and steam yacht, though strongly built, was 40 years old... ". Finetooth (talk) 16:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, "steam yacht" (SY) is a registration category rather than a ship description, like MV (motor vessel), RMS (Royal Mail ship) etc. It covers such a range of different ships as to be meaningless as a description. I have used the former Arctic whaler in the Background section, which is really as much as I can do. Thank you for your support and for earlier help with the article's map. Brianboulton (talk) 22:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. I'm fine with this. Finetooth (talk) 18:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/SY_Aurora%27s_drift/archive1&oldid=1089083571"