Wikipedia:Peer review/New South Greenland/archive1

New South Greenland

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for December 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This is a divergence from my usual expedition histories - a shortish account of the discovery of an Antarctic land that never was, by an American sealing captain in the 1820s. General review comments welcomed. I would particularly appreciate it if someone can confirm that what I've said about Fata Morgana mirages is accurate (I failed Physics 'O' Level examinations at school) Thanks, Brianboulton (talk) 18:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comments As expected, a very nice, very solid piece of work about a little known subject. I know little about Antartic exploration and have never previously been particularly enthused by it, but I have to say that Brianboulton's articles never cease to interest and intrigue me and this is no exception. I only have a couple of comments: Firstly independant articles on Benjamin Morrell and Robert Johnson would be particularly interesting in gaining a better understanding of the men who had such an effect on this subject, although this is hardly an actionable issue for FAC or similar. Secondly, when you say "According to Mills", I would give his full name again "W.J. Mills" because it has been a while since we saw him and there is another historian with a similar surname, which can create confusion. I will look through it again soon, but I don't think that I have any more issues to add (and the sailing stuff sounds fine to me as well). Great work. --Jackyd101 (talk) 18:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your helpful comments. I have taken your suggestion and specified "WJ Mills" to distinguish him more clearly from Hugh Robert Mill. On the matter of independent articles for Morrell and Johnson, I am seriously investigating the possibilities of one for Morrell. The present difficulty is finding neutral sources, i.e. other than his own Four voyages account, which cannot be relied upon. As to Johnson, it is very hard to find out anything about him beyond what I have included in the New South Greenland article, but I continue to be on the lookout. These might be very interesting projects for the future as I move my emphasis away from the Heroic Age. Brianboulton (talk) 17:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Review comments

• The first section (after the lead) jumps right in with "Wasp sailed south". This works if the reader has read the lead, but I think it would be better to have the body of the article step back for a sentence or two and say something like "In the early 19th century, the geography of Antarctica was almost completely unknown, though sightings of land had been made for over a hundred years by fishing and sealing ships" and set the scene a little. (I just made that up; I don't know if it's accurate.) For example, it appears that Morrell was deliberately exploring, rather than just sealing -- e.g. he searches for the Aurora Islands; is that the case? Was this a combined exploration/sealing expedition? Was that usual, or was Morrell unusual in this? Was Wasp already his ship? Had he explored in it before? I don't think you need more than two or three sentences, but it's a little too abrupt a start right now.
  • I have adopted your suggestion, and added a brief scene-setting paragraph. I think it provides sufficient context, and adds that Morrell had already been south, before his appointment to command Wasp. Brianboulton (talk) 00:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

    I think the new first paragraph works well. One possible change would be to make "who had the previous year sailed to the South Sandwich Islands" into "who had sailed to the South Sandwich Islands the previous year"; a slightly more natural phrasing. Mike Christie (talk) 03:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

    Agreed and done Brianboulton (talk) 00:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• "Morrell wrongly recorded his position there, placing his anchorage to the south and west of the island's coastline": I'm not sure from this what his error was. Did he actually anchor to the south and west? Or does this mean that he thought the position he was recording was actually on the coastline, but the position he gave was off to the south and west, well away from the coast? The size of the error would be interesting too, given that the reader immediately wonders how it compares with the difference between his sighting of New South Greenland and the similarly-shaped coast of Graham Land. (And that in turn implies that a scale would be good to have on that picture.)
  • I hope that my slight rewording has made things clear. The main object of this paragraph is to draw attention to factors which impinge on Morrell's credibility: he anchors at South Georgia but gives the wrong coordinates; then he finds the elusive Bouvet Island with "suspicious ease"; he then misdescribes the island, omitting its most visible feature. Should this man's account be trusted? Brianboulton (talk) 00:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

    The fix you've made works. I think the paragraph does have the effect you want; 60 miles is enough for a reader's eyebrows to go up and to make them think Morrell is unreliable, so I think it's worth being specific. Mike Christie (talk) 03:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• "a misleading description": is "misleading" what you want here? Isn't the description flat-out inaccurate, not really misleading?
  • I'd still say more misleading than flat-out inaccurate, but for fear of being accused of POV adjectives, I've avaoided both, and simply reported that Morrell omitted the island's most salient feature in his description. Brianboulton (talk) 00:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

    Well, OK, but surely Mills says something quotable in this context to the effect that Morrell is incompetent or unreliable or both? Would be good to point this out to the reader. Mike Christie (talk) 03:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

    The word Mills uses is "unreliable", so I've worked that in by a slight adjustment to the text.

• "otherwise, he claims, in these open waters he could have taken the ship to 85°": I'd suggest "claimed" to stay in a consistent past tense.
  • When Morrell does things I use the past tense; when he says or describes things I use the "literary present". I think I have been fairly consistent, but I will check again. Brianboulton (talk) 01:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

    You're right; my mistake. Mike Christie (talk) 03:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• "Morrell describes seal hunting activities along this putative coast, which activity continued during the remainder of the day": what's the difference between what Morrell describes and the activity that continues for the remainder of the day? In other words, could this be compressed to something like "Morrell describes seal hunting activities continuing along this putative coast for the remainder of the day"?
  • Your suggested rewording has been adopted. Brianboulton (talk) 01:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
• The first paragraph of "Searches for Morrell's land" seems to me to need an additional sentence after the first. You have a sentence commenting that geographers often dismissed the sighting, followed by a description of the limited early voyages into the Weddell Sea. I think a sentence linking these is needed; perhaps something like "This scepticism about Morrell's observations could not be confirmed for decades, as the Weddell Sea was only penetrated once more in the next eighty years. The sole expedition in that time was Sir James Clark Ross's voyage of 1843 ..." or something like that--I haven't phrased it just right there, but I think some segue like that would be useful.
  • I have taken the spirit of your suggestion rather than the wording, and I hope I have put it clearly and satisfactorily. Brianboulton (talk) 01:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

    I think that works well. Mike Christie (talk) 03:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• You only mention the title of Morrell's book in the lead. I think it would be good to mention early on that he made four voyages overall and that this was the first, perhaps in the additional context sentences I suggested at the start of the body. Then I would mention the title of the book at the end, where you talk about him writing it.
  • I've mentioned the four voyages in the context paragraph, with a footnote to indicate where they went. I'll add the title to the final para.

    That does it. Mike Christie (talk) 03:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• Is the position on the map marked "? mountains" the point from which Morrell turned north (67°52'S, 48°11W)? If so, I'd suggest either putting the coordinates on the map, as you did with the North Cape position, or else making it clearer in the label that this corresponds to the furthest southern point to which Morrell sailed.
  • The position of the mythical "mountains" is not given; we are told it was about 70 miles south of the point where Morrell turned north. This position ought to be indicated, and I will raise the matter with the patient Ruhrfisch. Brianboulton (talk) 01:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

    OK. Mike Christie (talk) 03:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

    The calculated position is now on the map. Brianboulton (talk) 00:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I spent some time thinking about whether another map, showing Bouvet Island and perhaps even the Kerguelens on the same map as the Weddell Sea, would be useful, but finally decided that this is about New South Greenland, not about Morrell, so I think the one you have is fine. Overall a concise, interesting and well-written article. Thanks for the chance to review it. Mike Christie (talk) 12:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for these most helpful comments. A map extending to Bouvet Island, the Kerguelens anf the Farthest East would have to be on a very small scale, and would not be that informative. Also, as you indicate, the focus in this article should be on New South Greenland, rather than on the wider voyage. Brianboulton (talk) 01:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Mike, if you're still watching this page, what do you think of this map Image:1894 map of Antactica.jpg? It shows how little was known of Antarctic geography even 70 years after Morrell. The bottom map shows Ross's Appearance, but (perhaps significantly) does not mention Morrell, or New South Greenland. If you think the map ought to be in the article, where do you think it should go? Brianboulton (talk) 16:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be useful, particularly because of the inclusion of Ross's Appearance. How about making it a thumbnail on the right at the top of the "First Phase" section? You might also consider cropping it to just show the lower map, which is what's of particular interest here. I think the caption should make the same point you do -- that this is seventy years later, and Ross's Appearance is included but Morrell's is not. Mike Christie (talk) 12:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've added the map - the full version, because my cropped version won't magnify up to readable form. It doesn't look right in the First Phase section, which doesn't involve the Weddell Sea, so I've put it in the appropriate section, in place of the Filchner image which was relatively uninformative. Also, I've been able to expand the article a bit, after finding a new source which gave additional information, so things are looking good! Brianboulton (talk) 00:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• • I added the distance scale in kilometres to the map I made. Let me know if you want labels changed (the southernmost point originally had latitude and longitude, but that was estimated from another map and removed later). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

    I see the scale is on the top left of the map as well as the bottom right; at top left it conflicts with the South American peninsula. Could it be removed from the top left? Incidentally, how do you create these? I see you use Online Map Creation; how do you recolour the map? I occasionally need maps for my own articles, and I'd love to know how you do these. Mike Christie (talk) 13:52, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

    I fixed the map, thanks for pointing that out. I use MS Paint or Paint.net. To color I use the semi official map colors and fill or erase as needed. I have some details on how I do maps at User:Ruhrfisch/Resources#Making_Maps Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)