Talk:Dogs of the Australasian Antarctic Expedition

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by Yomangani (talk) 22:14, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

One of the Australasian Antarctic Expedition's sledge dogs

• ... that of the fifty original dogs of the Australasian Antarctic Expedition (one pictured) only two returned from Antarctica?
  • ALT1:... that all of the dogs of the Australasian Antarctic Expedition (one pictured) that arrived at the main base in 1912 were dead by the end of the year?

• Reviewed: Now that's QPQ
• Comment: Uplifting AF, isn't it? I thought I'd share the cheeriness around. Only really nominated because the picture is fantastic.

Moved to mainspace by Yomangani (talk). Self-nominated at 13:01, 6 March 2020 (UTC).

• :* New enough. Long enough. Great article. Hooks are both interesting and supported by multiple WP:RS. Picture is free of copyright, available for use on main page, and is clear and captivating. Still checking for Copyright violations. I am unclear which article you are saying you reviewed as a QPQ? The link you provided is odd, and does not seem to show a review. I see that Kingsley Fairbridge made it to DYK; is that what you mean? Ordinarily we would link to the nomination page? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:38, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• That review is (I think) the first one I ever did (for Château de Cheverny under November 6), but it was back before nomination templates. It is a failing review, but I think that should still count. Yomangani^talk 13:51, 6 March 2020 (UTC

That is before my time. A review is a review is a review. I WP:AGF as to the DYK. When I ran your user name through the QPQ machine, I didn't get any result. If this is in fact your first DYK, you don't need a QPQ.

So that we get past that, I will contribute one of mine; not to take away from your claim of 'oldest QPQ' for 6 November 2006 review, which really is ancient. Template:Did you know nominations/Sociopolitical issues of anatomy in America in the 19th century takes care of that. Article is free of apparent copyright violations. No issue of plagiarism or close paraphrasing. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:00, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. It is not my first DYK (I was at one time - in days of yore - the most prolific DYKer), but I stopped submitting them before the nomination templates were created. Yomangani^talk 14:08, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• Hi, I came by a few times to promote this, but suggesting it for the image slot with a less than hooky hook (ALT0) or a downer hook (ALT1) is not going to work. You have a long article here; could you suggest something more uplifting? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 23:05, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• I thought the original hook would provoke the question "what happened to the others?" - you wouldn't naturally assume they were all dead, would you? Or if you did, you'd want to know how and why. There's nothing uplifting in the article that would make a good match for the picture - it's very much canine death and despair all round except for a couple of returnees (not pictured). The pic is only reason I nominated it, so it would be a pity if it wasn't used. Yomangani^talk 12:36, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

As the reviewer, I thought the picture is itself attractive, and more than made up for the lack of an inspiring hook. De gustibus non est disputandum. But apparently some of us do. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:41, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Yoninah Too many notes? This article qualifies and is well worthy of being on the main page. What pap do you suggest instead? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• I'd like to take a look later and see if I can suggest something else. Yoninah (talk) 19:26, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• OK, I read the article and you're right, ALT0 is what can be said about it. The only other idea I can propose is:
• ALT2: ... that Douglas Mawson chose sledge dogs (example pictured) over ponies for his Australasian Antarctic Expedition, but lost most of them due to disease and accidents?
• BTW there are several paragraphs and a quote that have no cites, per Rule D2. Yoninah (talk) 21:36, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• ALT2 is no good, both because many of the dogs were killed (so not lost through disease or accidents) and because the phrasing implies that ponies would have been a better choice. Yomangani^talk 23:53, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

To reply: All of the paragraphs except the lead have (had) citations. What you saw was the way the quotes were formatted. The citations just appeared a little lower. And I've now corrected that. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:26, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• GTG. See review above. Any of these hooks will work. I leave it to the promoter to decide. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:32, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you, but under the section "Western base" the paragraph beginning Despite including an extra man in the party, and the last paragraph beginning Aurora arrived on 25 February don't have any cites. Under "After the expedition", the paragraph beginning There was no mention of Mac has no cites. Yoninah (talk) 22:37, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• The first two were covered by other cites in that section, but now reinforced. The line about Mac is awaiting a citation. Yomangani^talk 23:53, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Moved unmentioned Mac to a footnote. Hard to prove a negative, anyway. And his fate is just speculation. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:44, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

There are still a number of paragraphs without an citations, per Rule D2. Yoninah (talk) 19:38, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Please see observation of Yoninah. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:25, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Just reject it/archive it/whatever is done nowadays. I thought it might be interesting for DYK but I didn't remember that it had more stringent rules than FAC nowadays. It's been over a month anyway, so it's hardly from Wikipedia's newest articles anymore. Yomangani^talk 22:58, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

The time limits are only the starting gun. It still qualifies. There are four paragraphs that need citations, and they are marked with "citation needed". You are now over all the other hurdles. You've run 25 miles (40 km). Finish the marathon.

I understand your frustration. Yes, you are right: the WP:DYK process is bureaucratic and overladen with rules – common sense is not part of it. And it takes too long. Believe me, I have been on the other end of this b.s. We need to fix the problem, not fix the blame. Finishing up your article and getting it on the main page is what we can do today.

FWIW, I personally invested a QPQ. And this article (and picture) is a really good addition to Wikipedia. Don't give up.7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:04, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

It's already got 125 citations and about 50 sources (many of them subject specific). It is the most comprehensive look at the topic anywhere. It really doesn't need more cites for some bits of information that appear widely both in WP articles and the sources and I don't have the editions I used to hand anymore (though I could just make them up and nobody would be any the wiser). I'm not frustrated with DYK - it diverged from what I thought it should be a long time ago, which is why I stopped submitting. After so many years away, I just forgot. If it can't go out as it is, then just archive it please. Yomangani^talk 23:39, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

• User:7&6=thirteen can we comment out the uncited paragraphs until after the main page appearance? Yoninah (talk) 18:58, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Go for it. They are noncritical, and provide information that is useful, but certainly not indispensable. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:31, 11 April 2020 (UTC)