Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cape Horn

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cape Horn

[edit]

Self-nom: An interesting and significant subject, IMO. I've done a bit of work on this; after a very productive peer review, I think this is about ready for FAC. All comments welcome. — Johan the Ghost seance 10:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Conditional Support – 1. metric equivalent of 400 miles needed 2. Strait of Le Maire is the only red link. Creating the article would give a more professional touch to the page. 3. Anything on demographics (if possible)? population/density etc. 4. Pamir was the last commercial sailing ship to round Cape Horn laden with cargo. When? 5. A brief sentence on the etymology should be present in the lead. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for the comments:
  1. Done.
  2. Done (Le Maire Strait).
  3. Clarified this: "... the navy supports a lighthouse keeper and his family (the only residents of the island)".
  4. Fixed.
  5. I've added that quite briefly in the first sentence; thought about adding more, but this seems to cover it — what do you think?
— Johan the Ghost seance 20:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object (Criterion 2a) The lead doesn't fill me with confidence.

It has improved. Tony 13:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cape Horn (Dutch: Kaap Hoorn; Spanish: Cabo de Hornos; named for the Dutch city of Hoorn) is a headland at the southern tip of the South American continental shelf, and, as part of the territory of Chile, is widely considered to be the southernmost point of land in South America. The cape is the southernmost of the great capes, and marks the northern boundary of the Drake Passage; it was for many years a major milestone on the clipper route, by which sailing ships carried trade around the world. However, Cape Horn is notorious for particularly hazardous conditions, due to strong winds, large waves, and icebergs, and became notorious as a sailors' graveyard.
    • 'as part of'—sounds as though because it's part of Chile, it's the southernmost point.
    • 'point of land in'—why not 'tip of'?
    • 'southernmost' twice in two phrases.
    • 'it was for many years'—awkward word order.
    • 'and became'—awkward as the final item in that 'listing' sentence. It's because of the strong winds, etc, that it became a graveyard—make the causal connection clear; a chronological item would be good here, too (during the 17th and 19th centuries?).
The whole article needs serious word-work. Tony 23:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the comments. I think I've addressed all the above, and tried to better present the cape's slightly ambiguous status. I've also gone over the whole thing to work on the language. Funny how you can't see those awkward word formations when you've worked on an article — I re-read it like 20 times before FAC, but someone else points them out and they look horrible. — Johan the Ghost seance 01:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. You've pointed out a critical phenomenon for writers and editors. Put away a text for a week and read it afresh; print it out instead of editing on the monitor; or get someone else to look at it—these are all ways of achieving distance from the original writing process. This distance (I call it 'functional ignorance') promotes good writing. See if you can invoke the third method here, by having someone else highlight the bits that need work. Tony 03:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I had a peer review... do you have further comments on the article? — Johan the Ghost seance 10:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um ... sorry, but peer reviews are irrelevant here. Tony 11:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I don't have a clue what you're saying. Peer reviews are part of the FAC process. — Johan the Ghost seance 12:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I guess that's not true any more, since "Path to a Featured Article" has gone. — Johan the Ghost seance 12:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object (Leaning toward support; a pretty ship-shape article by and large):
    • The sentence "The Horn (as it is commonly known to sailors) is widely considered to be the southernmost point of South America; as such it is not a true cape, however, as it is actually situated on a small island, Hoorn Island (Isla Hornos), which is the southernmost of the Hermite Islands" needs help in a bad way.
    • The "Shipping hazards" section would benefit from an explanation to the layman of which direction a westerly wind blows.
    • Reading the article almost made me believe no east-to-west passages of the Horn were ever made, but I don't think that's true, even for sailboats...
    • Would it be worth having a separate discussion of sailing vessels vs. motorized vessels, as far as the navigational challenges of the passage go?
      • I've no real info on that; many of the issues are common, however. Big waves is the core issue (caused by the combination of the basic waves of the south, winds, shoaling, narrowing, and currents), and no ships like big waves. — Johan the Ghost seance 02:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hmm - but if the winds blew true from the west for a sustained period, a sailing vessel (at least an old square-rigger) could make no real progress, or so I gather from too much Patrick O'Brian. But this isn't a big deal; my objection isn't going to stand on this.
    • A couple sections peter out with one-sentence paragraphs.
    • Footnotes to web pages should list authors and dates where possible; listing the date the page was last retrieved is also customary (in case the site goes down or changes significantly, having the date helps with looking it up on internet archives sites).
—Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I notice you put the ESPN show in. I originally had this, then deleted it, because as far as I can see it has no relevance — "around the horn" in basketball seems to refer to going around the goal-post, or something. Do you have a reference that makes it relevant to Cape Horn, or shall I delete it? — Johan the Ghost seance 11:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Seems like a solid article to me, although I don't know enough about the topic to fully vet it. Object Sorry for being later in the process on this. Overall, I found the article good: informative, easy to read. But, the Literature and Culture section raised flags. Here, the coverage seems extremely superficial and arbitrary. A choice was made to include the section, so it should be done well.
  • Discussion of literature incomplete Things like Mutiny on the Bounty, Two Years Before the Mast, Darwin's The Voyage of the Beagle and other interesting old and contemporary literature are not mentioned. Also, movies and the like. This doesn't have to get out of control, just some of the most notable titles would suffice (IMO).
  • Thanks for the comments, which I found constructive and helpful. However, I can only put in what I have information on; I've added a note on Two Years Before the Mast, but I have no idea about the relevance of the others — OK, the Bounty went around the Horn, but does the book have anything significant to say about it? If anyone has any info on these books, please feel free to add it. — Johan the Ghost seance 20:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The specifics were just suggestions, but I think the section is better filled out now and can be added to. For Bounty, I believe a significant part of the trip/story was failure to get around the Horn. I'll add it if I ever confirm. I added a Darwin paragraph, which may seem long, and represents only a tiny part of the book, but it is a great description and in the context of sailing at that time, and seems to fit nicely overall... --Tsavage 02:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The final sentence is trivial and unsupported - Closing on that was kind of a letdown. This stuff belongs in a trivia section, and must be supported, else practically anything with "horn" in it could be attributed to Cape Horn. For all it contributes, even with support, it should probably be deleted unless/until a comprehensive Trivia section is constructed. In an FA, it is a negative. (I leave it to the currently presiding editor to decide for now...)
Two smaller points:
  • "Contemporary weather records for Ushuaia show" - location needs clarification In climate, after reading a para about conditions as recorded in the 1800s, Ushuaia suddenly comes up. This interrupted the flow, because presumably from the use of ancient recrods, getting true conditions for Cape Horn is difficult, so I immediately wanted to know how closely or not Ushuaia related...
  • In literature, single-handed sailing is mentioned - the first to succeed should be mentioned Having introduced the idea of small craft doing this on their own, more info seems missing when it's not there.
  • I found this: The first sailor who really conquered the great Cape Horn was Connor O'Brien, who rounded it with three friends on board the 42 footer "Saoirse", during the circumnavigation between 1923 and 1925 becoming the first cap hornier in the history of sailing.[1] You may want to include it if sources check out. --Tsavage 02:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, I'd make the changes, even to literature, if I had more than passing knowledge. Thanks. --Tsavage 11:46, 12 February 2006(UTC)
  • weak oppose the references are weirds. there are footnotes in a "Reference" sections, but no "Sources" section collating all the paper references. Also, books that are used as sources need not be in "Further readings". Circeus 19:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Manual of Style (headings) says that the section for sources is titled "References", not "Sources", and that's what I've done. The "footnotes" in the "References" section are all the sources for the article; these are formatted in "footnote" style, which seems to be the preferred style, as per WP:CITE. Why would the paper references be collated separately? Several of the references (eg. The Circumnavigators, by Don Holm) are both paper and electronic. As for the "Further reading" section, the books in there were not used as sources, or else they would have been in the "References" section. They are listed for further reading for anyone who's interested. — Johan the Ghost seance 20:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
says that the section for sources is titled "References", not "Sources", still, many current FA uses "sources", though that doesn' make much difference, I admit. It does allow a separation between "major", and "other" sources, though.
Why would the paper references be collated separately? What I see is a "references" section containing footnotes, no "references" or "sources" section and a "further reading" section that i expect to contain books that were not used to write the article. I expect that if a book is mentionned in the footnotes, it should amongst the references too. the main sources of my confusion is that the Dallas book is in both sections. (Oh god I'm making absolutely no sense -_-;;;;)
Extra comment: Would you mind much a conversion to <ref>s? (I can do it myself). It'd allow for easy concatenation of the multiple identical references.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Circeus (talk • contribs) (due to format typo)
Hi, thanks for the response.
  • Not sure what you mean by "major" and "other" sources; I've simply cited every source I used. Anyhow, the fact that other articles use "Sources" isn't a reason for me to break MoS.
See Scotland in the High Middle Ages for an (extreme, I admit, it's the first that come my mind) exampleof what I meant. Circeus 20:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure I understand your second comment. You're quite right about the Dallas book being in both sections; that was my mistake, and it's now fixed — sorry for the confusion. The "References" section right now does not contain footnotes. It contains references, formatted in "footnote" style, which is in line with the WP:CITE part of the Manual of Style. The "Further reading" section contains exactly what you said; books that were not used to write the article.
  • As for <ref>, I've only just found out about it — I guess it's new. I'll get to work on the conversion when time allows, since it's obviously the best way to do this.
It's not necessarily the best way to do it. Though it has it's advantage over the template-based methods,it has disadvantages of its own, notably in how you must hunt down the note within the article to change it (having been doing conversions today and yesterday, I assure you it can be a real pain). The easy concatenation is a prime advantage, though. Circeus 20:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers! — Johan the Ghost seance 20:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've changed it to <ref> references. (The template method was a right frig, because it relied on two independent numbering systems coincidentally producing the same numbers; so it was very fragile. I therefore really like ref; at least all the information is in one place, which is where it is used.) — Johan the Ghost seance 21:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Cape_Horn&oldid=1080991515"