Wikipedia:Peer review/Ross Sea party/archive1

Ross Sea party

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… it has been developed from a Start-rated article into a much more comprehensive account of this expedition. I would welcome advice as to how it can be further improved with a view to a higher quality rating & possible GA nomination, with particular reference to accuracy, readability, general style.

Thanks, Brianboulton (talk) 23:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another good article that should pass FA without too much trouble.

The lead is better here than on the Terra Nova article, but the crew list at the beginning of the article is again ugly. A more detailed introduction of the crew would give some idea of the principal actors in the story.
Although the focus should be away from Shackleton's adventures, I think his story is a little too underplayed here - it gives the impression he couldn't land and then spent two years hanging around on board Endurance before returning to civilization and considering that he should probably rescue the Ross Sea party.
I'm not sure party should be capitalized in Ross Sea party - they were the party sent to the Ross Sea, but I don't think they were officially named the Ross Sea Party - minor point anyway.
Web references need expanding to give details of title, publisher, access dates etc. Yomangani ^talk 12:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments and suggestions. I have accepted these and revised the article accordingly. The personnel section has been redone in narrative form, concentrating on the main players rather than listing everyone, and I agree this looks and reads better. Shackleton has been elevated to a bit more than a passing mention, in the intro and the Rescue section. I have adopted the Ross Sea party (not Party) format except in the article title. I've also sorted out the web references as best I can (I inherited these from a previous editor).

Further comments welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 22:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine to me now. I'd support it at FAC. Yomangani ^talk 00:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Echoing the suggestion above, I would encourage you to consider renaming the article itself "Ross Sea party" for consistency. MaxVeers (talk) 01:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel strongly about this so I'll do as you suggest Brianboulton (talk) 09:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR _t 15:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]