Talk:S. A. Andrée's Arctic Balloon Expedition of 1897/Archive 1

Lead image

Would it be possible to slightly decrease the size of Image:"Eagle".crashed3.png? In its current state, at least on this monitor, it is shoving the text toward the left side of the screen and engulfs a fair portion of the beginning of the article. However, this is not a major concern and is solely attempting to expand upon the reading size. —Eternal Equinox | talk 19:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I've reduced the size of the image greatly. It now fits my monitor without disrupting the text. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

50 px? LOL. Your image syntax is faulty, please leave it alone and I'll see if I can find a workable compromise. Bishonen | ノート 21:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC).

Specifying a size doesn't do anything when "frame" is specified, EE. (And 50px would be very, very, very small -- if it worked). —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

What on earth resolution are you using?? I've found that 270px works ok for 1024x768 screens, 380px is good for higher. Even if you are using 640x480 I can't see why you'd need it that small o___O - FrancisTyers 21:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Now believe me, I was definitely reluctant at setting the image's resolution at 50 pixels, really. In the end, it was the best-suited option and now fits this monitor perfectly. However, if it is rather delicate with others, I'd find it fair enough if Bishonen located a compromise, whatever it may be (but please refrain from it being something as large as the image had been before, thank you). —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Francis, I had put it in at original size, i. e. "frame", not "thumb". EE left it as "frame", so I don't see how it can have gotten smaller at all until I changed it. I expect the "50" was an expression of frustration. Anyway, I'll respond on FAC. Bishonen | ノート 21:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC).

What do you mean Bishonen? The image did change in size. Actually, yes, please respond on the FAC, I think I may have located something. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, the catalogue experienced an input error when I made the change (even without removing the "frame"), therefore the image did not change in size and the computers malfunctioned to make all the text, images, and extras Wikipedia provides smaller in size. Excuse this mistake. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Sloppy sentence

Incredibly well-written article, though I did come across one sloppy sentence: "Worse, the polar balloon Eagle was delivered directly from its Paris maker to Svalbard without being tested". I don't believe a sentence beginning with "worse" would register as encyclopedic; "Paris maker" is very vague. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, most things in the Lead (=summary of the article) are vague. Things get specified in the article proper, for instance Henri Lachambre the Paris balloon-maker. I made it that way after Peter Isotalo complained that there was too much specificity and detail in the Lead. Bishonen | ノート 22:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC).

Could you at least omit "worse"? It is not very encyclopedic. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand what's wrong with it. It links and relates the sentence to the one before, and linking helps clarity and logic, IMO. Bishonen | ノート 21:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC).

The request is to merely move "worse" from beginning the sentence and to insert it somewhere else. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I think the sentence is fine as it is. You've run this into the ground, EE, you want a poll or something? Bishonen | talk 13:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC).

Seconded. In my idiolect, a sentence may start in this way. -- Hoary 15:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, where is the love? I suppose I'll have to rewrite it myself. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Images

Although many of them are in the public domain, which is, of course, a wonderful title for these images to carry, does anyone else believe that there may be one too many in the article? I feel as though each point has to be illustrated visually and that without the images, I would be unable to intrepert the text properly. This is just my opinion, but perchance an image or two should be removed? Thoughts? —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Disagree; the text is entirely coherent and finely written, standing well apart from all the images. The images are almost all compelling documents in their own right, and I'd miss any one of them. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• As with her ridiculous comment above, here [1] we have a prime example of User:Hollow Wilerding, the mistress of multiple sock puppets (today calling herself "Eternal Equinox") editing not to make improvement to the encyclopedia but merely in a puerile attempt to irritate old adversaries, and settle imagined slights by other editors (in this case Bishonen. No doubt HW hopes some-one will rise to the bait, so that she can have further publicity. How long before she is finally permanently banned, and the oxygen that feeds her bizarre editing and commenting removed? I suggest people stop this futile attempt to be civil and just get rid of her. Giano | talk 09:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

No way, the images are great. Tempshill 23:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

It was just a thought, but okay, yes, the images are excellent. They can stay. I think Giano's comment may need to be removed for incivility and utter nonsense. —Eternal Equinox | talk 18:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The "fiasco"?

Perhaps a better word is required? "Fiasco" is rather awkward for an encyclopedia entry. —Eternal Equinox | talk 18:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Indirectly related response here. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Bunchofgrapes. I will assume with some effort that you're trying to help, EE, but you can't very well be unaware that your own sense of style is considered by some to be uncertain. Fiasco is a good word here. The sentence of mine that you insisted was "sloppy" (above) was a good sentence, and your going on about it only made you look foolish. I hope you'll save yourself the embarrassment of making a similar song and dance about "fiasco". Bishonen | talk 19:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC).

Are you willing to answer my question? How hard can it be to rename "fiasco" (debacle, disaster, tragedy, failure)? —Eternal Equinox | talk 19:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Changed to "debacle". —Eternal Equinox | talk 19:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

A better word is not required. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

That does not make sense. If the writing of a featured article is supposed to be "brilliant", then we want to be using very-excellent English. A better word is certainly required in order to achieve the term "brilliant". I am not following your logic. —Eternal Equinox | talk 20:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

"Fiasco" is a fine, great, perfect word there. I believe you are only carrying out this farce of a crusade to be deliberately disruptive. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

That's quite a bold statement there. I'm going to file an RfC very soon. Please see assume good faith, because currently you are being ridiculous. —Eternal Equinox | talk 20:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

You go right ahead. Your stalker behavior has plumb worn out my AGF. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not the one who looked through my contributions and listed every single article that I edited. Stalker behaviour indeed. —Eternal Equinox | talk 20:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Contribution histories are public and welcome to all to look at; following people around to articles and making harrying edits is an entirely different mattter. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Following around? Ever since this article was brought to FAC, I've been checking up on it little by little (I've already told you why). I am not following anybody around. Histories may be open to look at, but I think providing details such as "2 edits in this field as opposed to 5 edits in this field" is proportionally... creepy. —Eternal Equinox | talk 20:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Grapes, what do you think you're doing? I left a message on Bishonen's user talk page explaining why the images had to be decreased in size. Please do not assume ownership of this article. Since I am currently balancing before 3RR, I cannot place the images in a lower-frame until tomorrow. Come tomorrow, please do not revert these changes. —Eternal Equinox | talk 20:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

You are incorrect. The image problems your library is having have nothing to do with the monitors or the coding at Wikipedia. Rather, these are problems with obsolete web browsers, and upgrading browsers is free. Take up the issue with the librarians, but please don't make the images difficult to discern on the article in order to accomodate a minority and archaic system. All libraries should adopt open-source browsers, like Mozilla, anyway, but that's a separate isssue. The majority does not need to serve the smallest minority, else we're in Happy Birthday, Wanda Jean territory (a Vonnegut story). Geogre 20:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I've read that story. Uh, I suppose you're right. Okay, sorry, I'll arrange a meeting with the chairman then. —Eternal Equinox | talk 20:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

It's easy enough to do. You only need your sysadmin to unlock the desktops, assuming that they've been wise and locked them. Some people argue that you loose Active X and Direct X and whatever frippery IE builds in, but they can also upgrade to the newer versions of IE. At any rate, the code spill you're seeing is definitely due to archaic software. Unless the library is stocked with actual, honest to goodness, CGA monitors (and the last of those has burned out by now), there's no reason for them to display in such low resolution as to require editing our articles. Beyond which, this is an FA, and FA's really should be treated as more finalized and finished than general articles, as they have passed through a form of peer review and have a community endorsement in their present forms. Geogre 02:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

FA or not, I agree a removal of the quite judgemental words "fiasco" and "disaster" from the subheadings would be an improvement. If it was an essay they would be great, but IMHO they do not quite fit in an encyclopaedia. // Habj 18:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Habj, please don't think anybody's trying to "own" the article just because it's an FA! That's not the reason people are responding negatively to EE above, and I'm sure he knows it. Please click on Bunchofgrapes' link (his first reply to EE) for a perspective on what BoG means by "harrying edits". Also, you may notice that the alternatives EE suggests are as value-loaded as what's there. (And he apparently thinks it would be a good idea to use "disaster" in both the headings, too.) An FA may be more finished than the average article, as Geogre says, but I'm sure nobody who has posted here means to suggest FA's are too finished to be improved. Do feel entirely free to make changes. Bishonen | talk 19:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC).

In both headers, eh? Learn to read. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Support keeping fiasco and disaster. - FrancisTyers 19:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Not that it matters, but I support that, too. <shrug> First, they were disasters and fiascos, and boondoggles and sinkholes and moneypits, as the text pretty amply demonstrates. Second, they add some life to the headings and give the reader the feeling of reading a narrative rather than a statistical report. It's not a huge deal, but NPOV doesn't mean adopting Thomas Sprat's ideal for the Royal Society and stripping all adjectives and values out. Geogre 03:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

"Several" is more encyclopedic than "many"..?

Seriously, Eternal Equinox, I'm beginning to understand the rationale not only of your stylistic changes to this article (which, incidentally, was unanimously hailed as exceptionally well-written on FAC), but of your own style as well (I'm sorry to be driven to pointing this out, but that style has been unanimously criticized on FAC, see current and earlier We Belong Together nominations). You believe that some words are more encyclopedic than others, regardless of what they mean, and must therefore be used in preference to those others regardless of what message you wish to convey. That, to me, explains a lot. Think about it, you may honestly find it helpful to try to disabuse yourself of such notions. Words are for communication, not decoration. The quality to strive for in choosing a word is precision, not some poorly-defined decorum, or whatever it is you mean by your (never explained) "better" words, more "excellent" or more "encyclopedic" words. Though I ask myself why I even bother to explain as to an adult, when I get retorts of such bad-tempered childishness as "Learn to read". You seem quite impervious to rational argument. I hereby give you notice that if you make further equally poor changes to the article, I'm going to start simply rolling you back. Bishonen | talk 03:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC).

Eternal Equinox, editing as an IP, replied here. (The comment has come and gone from this page since. Bishonen rolled it back, then later returned it, with commentary, in this edit.) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

This represents your immaturity and consistence at disruptive behaviour. (Additionally, only yourself and your friends care.) —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

We can go to the laborious process of an RFC on the article, but it would be absurd. Instead, I'll simply announce that I, too, will rollback EE's editing of the article, regardless of content. If there is a serious factual matter to be addressed, let him list it here, on the talk page, and someone else can add it in. Otherwise, the continued potty mouth and disruption is beyond the pale. Geogre 00:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Contested versions

It is my opinion that the wording of the article as it passed Featured Article candidacy is far superior to the wording that has been suggested by user:Eternal Equinox. I can explain why, in each case, but it isn't necessary. The weight of opinion behind the existing wording is that of all the voters on FAC. Therefore, edit warring over a different version amounts to flying in the face of consensus and can result in Request for Comment and arbitration. If there is a particular rationale for a change, it needs to be made here on the talk page, and not in edit summaries. Otherwise, the changing is not only against consensus but disruption, which can result in blocks. Geogre 02:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I am no longer interested in changing the prose in this article. Now all I am trying to accomplish is alphabetizing the words before and following "and" and "or". I done this for an exceptional amount of time. Bishonen is constantly reverting this edit without a good explanation and writes in her edit summaries So it's an obsession. What's your point? What are your obsessions doing in article space?: that is not a good reason to revert one's edits. Additionally, the deaths of Andrée's companions are not listed alphabetically, but also not listed by who was born first, which is why I switched the positioning of the two. Bishonen needs to halt such misconduct as WP:OWN because simply trying to make an article more precise is not blockable behaviour. If we have to go through this again, I will take this to WP:AN/I. —Eternal Equinox | talk 19:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I think I'll save you the trouble and take it to ANI myself. Here's what I'll do if you place any more nonsense edits in this featured article, with or without your nonsense "argument" that you have a right to mess it up because "it's an obsession."[2] I will block you from editing for a time I haven't determined yet and place a formal softban on your editing this particular article again under any pretext. I will record these sanctions on WP:ANI, as one should with a softban. I'll remind people of your previous antics under the Hollow Wilerding and Winnermario (etc etc) identities, and ask for review of my block and pagebann. The resulting brouhaha on ANI, with the bann for exhausting the community's patience which I strongly suspect would follow, may be food for you, but are you sure you'll enjoy it when you try to edit those music articles from a cloud of anon IPs and people roll back your edits on sight? That action won't count towards 3RR: anybody has the right to revert a bann-evading user, with no restrictions. Isn't it better to pull the Eternal Equinox identity back from the brink and have another shot at being a respectable editor? Think about it. Your EE time is running out. Don't waste it. Bishonen | talk 20:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC).

Support. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Strong support. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 23:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Support. HeyNow10029 01:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, so you admit your violation to WP:OWN. And Bunchofgrapes' little biased "support" (based on... well, we all know what) is simply amusing. But... then, seeing how you expect to be treated like a queen and that whatever you say goes: no. This is not your article. You do not have the rights to decide what is "trolling" and all of this bullsh*t. Learn your lesson, wise up, and start respecting the decisions of others. You are not the only person in this world, and you are also not anybody such as Queen Elizabeth, who would certainly rid of your rudeness without argument.

I have no interest in enhancing this article any further. Let it weep all that it wants. And enough of the email-is-perfect-let's-sock conversations. I am done with you, I am done with you, I am done with you. This is history. Thank God. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

And we've heard this how many times? Oran e (t) (c) (e) 23:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Enough to know that these socks have exhausted my patience and Wikipedia itself. —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

How many times have we heard that too? Oran e (t) (c) (e) 00:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Eternal Equinox, please stop complaining and begin editing elsewhere in good faith. Protesting and trying to get even with people does no one any good. If you really feel agrieved, then go ahead and begin a formal process. Otherwise, please realize that there are a host of folks whose patience you have exhausted long ago. Yelling about it won't do any good. Geogre 03:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

For once — but with exception of the formal process — I feel that you are absolutely right. I won't edit on this page anymore, even if someone responds with an obviously-rude or -sarcastic "oh! you edited here again! you're obsessed with wiki!" This is my last edit here. Take care. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:55, 14 June 2006 (

Navigation

It looks like there's a pretty good idea of the route they took, judging from that map -- which I'm guessing comes from the diaries? But I've started to wonder what navigation equipment were they using to get their position? And how many readings did they make in the three-day period before the crash on 14 July? In other words, how approximate is the solid line on the map? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. The Med Örnen mot polen volume of 1930 remains the fullest resource on that. The Swedish original, at least, has a whole chapter on the instruments and the observations. The author of that chapter has no concept of writing for an amateur, but I believe the gist is that the expedition had a sextant, chronometers, and something called a "universal instrument". Compass isn't mentioned, though of course they had one, so maybe it was part of the universal thingy. They used them all the time, and kept several journals. The official point of the expedition was, after all, to map the place, and Frænkel was basically along for the purpose of making observations and measurements full time. From the balloon they were able to see the sun a lot of the time, and they could see several terrestrial points, called Vogelsang North and Gray Hoek, and something else. They could get latitude and longitude all right, and they noted them at least once an hour. The solid line is pretty good, I reckon. Of course the dotted line isn't, for many reasons, though they did keep up the frequent astronomical observations. Bishonen | ノート 02:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC).

(I can't face putting this stuff into the article though. I'd have to learn the terms! And it would get longer still, it's already indecent. Bishonen | ノート 02:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC).)

Thanks for satisfying my curiousity. Maybe you could sneak a tiny bit of that into the image description page - but it's probably not important in the article. Lucky for us it wasn't overcast much during those three days, I guess... —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Geography

The text says that from the landing point, the two depots were about the same distance. On the map, however, Cape Flora looks substantially further (three gridlines down and two across, compared to two lines down and one across for Seven Islands). Am I missing something? Mark^{your words} 23:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I find something to ask about, and someone else has gotten there first. I concur - was it a terrain thing? Or was "approximate" very very approximate? KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes. No, you're not missing anything. The explorers thought the distances were about equal, we can see that they're not. Very likely they had bad position info about either or both depots. (I mean, there was a reason they were there to map the place. For instance, Kvitøya at the time appeared on maps as two substantial islands some ways apart, White's Island and Gillis' Land or something, because somebody had taken a bad bearing once.) They could also have really meant approximately. Or they could have taken some wild guesses about likely winds and currents into account — you've seen how Andrée was likely to throw out wild guesses about that sort of thing, and then immediately become convinced that he was speaking fact. None of my sources discuss the distance, they just say it was about the same — I guess, just repeating Andrée's statement that it was, without looking closely at a map. So my discussing it in the article would be original research, I guess, besides being a bit of a waste of spece, as I wouldn't get anywhere. What do you think? Maybe I'd best just avoid saying anything about the distances at all? One thing I can state with confidence, though, Killer, is that it wasn't a terrain thing. They had no means, absolutely none, of knowing anything about the terrain until they were standing on it. Nobody'd been there. And besides, it moved. Bishonen | ノート 00:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC).

well, I was thinking if one direction looked fairly level, and in the other there was a huge iceberg or mountainous area, they might make a decision based on that. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The lead

It occurs to me that the lead, even in the short version, dedicates a healthy chunk of space to the failure of the drag rope system to allow steering -- which might be somewhat off-point, given that the lack of steering turned out to not really be a factor in the failure of the expedition, since the rapid hydrogen leakage made it a moot point. What do you think? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure, I'll think about it. The expedition was doomed twice over, because the balloon leaked and because it couldn't be steered. Andrée ought to have known both things, and I ought to have put both of them in the Lead, I think, regardless of which factor actually did for them. (In other words, I certainly ought to put the leakage thing, which I just removed, right back.) Another consideration is that the factor that didn't have time to bring down disaster on them, the lack of steering, is the more intrinsically interesting. I mean, if somebody could figure a good system for steering a balloon driven by the wind, it would revolutionise the whole thing. Being able to make a non-leaky surface is a more trivial problem, which surely had been solved by then; the lord knows what the eminent and highly-regarded Lachambre was doing, failing at it. Perhaps he had simply gone insane like the whole lot of them. Bishonen | ノート 05:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC).

I definitely see where you're coming from; I agree the steering holds more interest than the leaking -- although you could juice up the leaking angle with a mention of the (well-proven?) cheating Andrée was doing with the secret topping-ups, perhaps. Or would that tip the lead toward the Andrée-as-scoundrel angle too much? Hm. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, no man who got played by Max von Sydow can be all bad. Anyway, I think we're ready to go. Three... two... one... we're on FAC. Bishonen | ノート 00:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC).

Tone etc.

I really like the tone of this article, although I have to say, it could be toned down in some places, this for example: "Andrée neglected many early signs of the dangers of his balloon plan." made me laugh out loud, I don't know why and I don't know how you'd word it less humourously, but o___O - I loved this: "It must be at least somewhat steerable." - '"it had really been doing all along" (p. 47)' could this reference be made more explicit and could Andree be turned into Andrée all the way through? Even without these its FA material though :) Great work! - FrancisTyers 10:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Lol, thanks. I think he's Andrée everywhere except in quotes, where I follow the original spelling. Likely enough I've missed the little flydropping over the e in places where I meant to use it, though—if you see it missing in a non-quote, could you please just supply it? About having really been at the mercy of the ice drift all along, it's just an aside Kjellström drops, after describing the way the drift was first stopping them from getting to Cape Flora, and then, when they turned nearly 180°, the drift devilishly did the same, and remained set against them. I've just described that as well, when I quote Kjellström, so I'm not sure how I'd make it clearer. Any suggestion?

You call that tone? ;-) Me, I could have sworn people would object to the sarcasm "the little boat (not designed by Andrée) was apparently a functional and safe conveyance" (this after mentioning how bad the sleds that he'd designed were). But not a peep so far. :-) I really appreciate your tone remark, actually. It's nice to have stuff noticed! Bishonen | ノート 11:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC).

Haha! I'm glad it was deliberate, I purposely kept my comment as vague as possible because no-one else had commented and I wasn't sure if it was just your writing style - but yes, it does seem a bit sarcastic and definately seems like you're slating Andrée. Although I like this and I'm not going to butcher your prose by trying to fix it. Might be nice to fill in a stub for Henri Lachambre, the only redlink on the page. This is the first time that an article has been both a damned fine piece of encyclopaedic work and made me laugh. Normally I just get to laugh at the bad stuff :( - FrancisTyers 11:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I loved the little boat- please don't fix it! Mark^{your words} 11:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[Blush] Thank you both, that's very flattering. I hesitate to make a Lachambre stub myself—I'm very suspicious of the French and English Google hits for him, as they have a sinister similarity with the hair-raisingly inaccurate Anglophone Andrée pages I've come across. (Most of the Lachambre Google hits are inaccurate Andrée pages, if it comes to that.) Bishonen | ノート 14:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC).

As much as I abhor the use of Americanisms, why do you have metres instead of meters - which I understand is the usual American spelling? If its to prevent having to dab, then ignore this :) PS. I created a substub on Henri from a small reference in some journal I found. - FrancisTyers 15:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Heh, yes, I saw the link turn blue between two saves—thank you! I don't know why I have metres. [Plaintively.] User:KillerChihuahua did them. Or did User:Bunchofgrapes change them? Guys, are you there? Bishonen | ノート 15:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC).

Um, I think KC did a couple that way, and I played along, thinking that the whole article was commonwealth English (and no doubt the "metres" were what made Wayward copyedit in that direction too, since I know he respects that sort of thing...) In any case, they should be "meters", certainly. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Do we really have to say meter and liter when the SI spellings are metre and litre? And do we need to spell out that "kg" means kilogram each time when pound is always abbreviated "lb"? -- ALoan (Talk) 22:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The answer to the first question is a certain "yes": if the article is going to use American spellings, then it should be consistent. That really is how we spell over here. The second point, well, I admit I'm just blindly following the rule from the MOS:

Spell out source units in text. Use digits and unit symbols for converted values and for measurements in tables. For example, "a pipe 100 millimetres (4 in) in diameter and 10 miles (16 km) long".

I guess the idea is that the part outside the parent is part of the main text, and abbreviations are generally discouraged in the prose, while the part in the parens -- the conversion -- is an aside that should be kept short. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Sundman's interpretation

Hi, Andrew Levine. Your edit summaries insist that I'm misunderstanding the structure of a sentence I wrote. If there was any ambiguity about what the subject of the verb "carry over" was in my original sentence (I think there wasn't), I still showed, by using the form "carries", not "carry", that "interpretation" was the intended subject. I'm a little surprised you'd rerevert after I'd explained what I meant, effectively telling me "No, you didn't" or "Well, you oughtn't to have". It seems a little imperious. Also, "interpretation" is IMO preferable to "interpretations", because Sundman's interpretation of certain features of the culture he's writing about is all of a piece, it's closely interconnected, and therefore an interpretation, rather than three interpretations. Bishonen | ノート 21:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC).

An earlier interpretation

As early as 1931 the Swedish essayist Frans G. Bengtsson wrote an interpretation that is very close to Sundman's (and yours), and I suspect Sundman has borrowed a lot from it. His Andrée is a rather imature young man that is full of naive admiration for science and goes around bragging about what he will do with it - and discovers too late, at the time of the first fiasco, what he has set in motion.

Lachambre's book

Searching JSTOR for Henri Lachambre, I found (besides the Military Affairs article already referenced by FrancisTyers in the Lachambre article) the following book mentioned in one of those recent books sections of The Geographical Journal (1898, p. 457):

• Henri Lachambre & Alexis Machuron: Andrée. Au Pole Nord en Ballon. Paris: Librairie Nilsson, [1898]. Size 7 1/2 x 5, pp. 250. Portraits and illustrations.
• Henri Lachambre & Alexis Machuron: Andrée and his Balloon. London: A. Constable & Co, 1898. Size 8 x 5 1/2, pp. 306. Portraits and illustrations.

The bibliography notes: "This book, by the constructors of the balloon, describes all the preliminary arrangements and the departure of the expedition, with great detail and numerous illustrations."

Alexis Machuron has a stub on the German Wikipedia (Alexis Machuron), where the book is claimed to have influenced Alberto Santos-Dumont. u p p l a n d 22:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Numerous illustrations and all out of copyright, droool? I've never written any article with such an embarrassment of riches of great pictorial material. It would also be interesting to read it, of course. I wouldn't use it as a factual source, as it can hardly help being self-serving: the affair was embarrassing for Lachambre. And he was there, at Danskøya, for the abortive 1896 launch, he'll have known all about Ekholm's criticisms. Let me see...ha! KB has the Swedish, French, English, and Italian first editions. :-) You're very clever, Tups. I never thought to check the recent books sections of The Geographical Journal. ;-) Bishonen | ノート 07:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC).

De döda på Vitön

Resolved

Would it be possible to provide an English translation for "De döda på Vitön"? I couldn't find one

Also, (I wrote the first comment in this section) how am I supposed to particpate in discussion? I noticed it didn't save my name (not an ego thing, just wondering if I'm doing it right...) Lunch with Jason 02:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi and welcome! Type four tildes (~~~~) where you want to sign, and it automagically gets turned into a timestamped signature. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I went back and edited it to include. How do I go back and "cross it out", now that you have answered my question? (I've seen folks do that too...) Lunch with Jason 02:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

With the strikeout tag <s>, and its closing tag </s>. If I hadn't escaped the angle-brackets in that sentence, it would have come out thusly: "With the strikeout tag , and it's closing tag " —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

De döda på Vitön (="The Dead on Kvitøya") hasn't been published in any other language than Swedish, sorry; I've checked the Swedish and Danish national libraries, both of which would definitely have any existing translation. It wasn't even published in Danish, although Tryde was a Dane who no doubt wrote in that language. It's natural, if you think about it: it's a whole book about a single, rather minor aspect of the Andrée expedition: the question of what killed them. (That's a minor question, for my money, since they were doomed, they were going to be soon dead, if not from one cause, then from another.) Where was there a possible market for such a book? -Sweden, nowhere else. Bishonen | talk 13:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC).

I thought Lunch with Jason was asking for just a translation of the title; if so, I have obliged by adding it to the article. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. (That's what I was asking for.) Lunch with Jason 17:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Nice article. But there is nothing here concerning by whom or when their bodies where discovered.

Bravo

Beautifully done all the way around. Bravo. Geogre 02:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

:-) Thank you. Are you keeping an eye on it tonight, Geogre? I'm (yawn) s'posed to be in bed. Bishonen | talk 02:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC).

Great Article

A thums up to the authors of this article as it was very interesting. --Chile

I second that. One of the best of its type that I have read on Wikipedia. Peter Maggs 12:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

And thirded. A really well written, informative read. Two thumbs up. Barnas 15:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Fourthed. An excellent, informative and well-written article. Darkmind1970 10:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

congrtz on da good aticle

man dis is somer onf the bestr artricle i havwe every seen on wikpedia....i thought tha you did a bery good job tpyihis artivle please kep making article s this good b ecuase iot makes wikipedia look really good have a nicve dfay

Heh heh. :-D Very kind, both of you! Bishonen | talk 07:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC).

I was just going to say the same thing. I didn't know a thing about Andrée before.. it was very interesting and well-written! -- Mithent 11:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Discovery in the 30ies

Kudos to everyone who has helped make this a FA! An exciting article about an exciting story. But the part of the story that recounts how the remains of the explorers were found in the 30ies is underdeveloped. The webpage in polish that is in the external links section seems to have some info on that (I don't understand polish). Could this part be more elaborated? --Michalis Famelis 09:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.:-) I don't understand Polish either; I don't believe that site has any info that's not available in my books, though (see reference section), so that's moot. It's linked for the sake of the photos, which are exceptionally high quality (the web is full of miserable thumbnails of Strindberg's pics). You're not the first to ask for a fuller treatment of the finding of the bodies, compare featured article candidates discussion here. I've been meaning to expand it, I just haven't gotten round to it. Perhaps because I don't personally find it a very fascinating aspect of the story... I've understood that it's missed, though. I will, I will! Bishonen | talk 10:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC).

I think the story of the finding is an exciting one too. I found these two articles in the PRISM: The End of The Voyage - The Bratvaag Find (Aug. 6, 1930) and Further Discovery - The Isbjörn Expedition (Sept 6, 1930). I can try and sew a small paragraph from these two but I am intimidated by the prospect of tinkering with a FA that's on the Main Page. --Michalis Famelis 10:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, no, please don't be, do tinker! It's exactly because we (=User:Raul654, the FA director) hope for helpful tinkering that the Main Page article is not protected from editing. It's hoped that the helpfulness will balance the PENIS edits, that of course articles get a lot of also, on their day in the sun. I'd appreciate it if you input the paragraph you have in mind. Bishonen | talk 13:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC).

Done. --Michalis Famelis 17:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC) Oh, btw, I don't know if the ordering of the sections is correct now. Please see if it should be mended. --Michalis Famelis 17:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Ooh, looks nicely done at first glance - kudos. See, that didn't hurt too badly, did it? KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Another novel based on this balloon journey

I'm sure I read another (American?) novel based on this ballon journey (other than The Flight of the Eagle). It involved a woman on the trip disguised as man, and was quite 'psychological', otherwise it was clearly based on the Andree expedition (including death by polar bear meat) - it was a good read. Has anyone else come across this? what was the title?

LOL. A disguised woman in the triple sleeping-bag and nobody noticed? Quite a thought. I've never heard of it, but I'll keep a lookout from now on. Bishonen | talk 15:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC).

Found it! See http://www.physics.upenn.edu/~heiney/harris/balloonist.html for info and pics of the cover.--Mervynl 09:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Well done - I have found a Sundman interview (from New Zealand!) mentioning both novels, see below. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Links

WP:CONTEXT#To_link_or_not_to_link:_an_example gives the United States as the example of whether a link is relevent to the content. IMHO, the same consideration applies here, because Russia and Canada are not specifically relevent - neither had anything to do with the expedition directly. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Newspaper article

Pittsburgh Post, 1898. Not sure if you saw this one, Bishonen - it highlights how much Andree mis-stated how the 1896 excursion went, and how ignorant people were (at least Pittsburgh reporters were) about the conditions near the North Pole. It might be useful, I post the link here: http://ku-prism.org/polarscientist/andreemystery/June191898Pittsburgh.htm I accidentally stumbled across this trying to find the fictional story above (woman disguised as man) KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Legacy

Wasn't George MacBeth's poetic novel "Anna's book" also based on this expedition? Notjim 18:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes - "Anna Charlier faces months of anxiety and fear when her fiance, Nils Strindberg, joins a Swedish balloon expedition to the North Pole"[3] and Per Olof Sundman on Anna's Book (1983): "Although MacBeth claims to have solely used the Andrée men's diaries as his material, Sundman commented that there were a number of turns of phrase in MacBeth's novel which indicated that he had in fact used the English translation of Ingenjör Andrées luftfärd (translated by Mary Sandbach) as his source of inspiration." [4] (with the footnote: "See also "En ballongseglats mot döden", p. 2. The other novel mentioned there by Sundman as being (very loosely) based on the Andrée story is The Balloonist (1976) by MacDonald Harris") -- ALoan (Talk) 12:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Estonia Disaster Quote is Unclear

It's unclear that this quote was made significantly in the future, where a date of 1994 makes sense. The first thing that popped into my head is that this date must be wrong, because 1994 doesn't make sense when talking about something that occurred in 1930. Please someone add some dated information to indicate that this is a contemporary quote.

I see your point. I've simply deleted the second sentence from that quote - I don't think it was neccessary to carry the point. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

...And I put it back. See section below. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

End of diary

This is a great article. It may be disrespectful or grim, but I'm curious what the incoherent end of the journal said. Tempshill 23:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I have it on good authority that the final diary entry was "So long and thanks for all the fish" Raul654 20:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

81.131.87.205 , did you edited the wrong version

It seems to me that the last editor, 81.131.87.205, bases his/hers edits on an older version. By this a lot new information added the last day is lost. To me it seems to be the best solution to revert the last edit. Some other opinions? ---Arnejohs 09:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Where has the national mourning gone?

What happened to that fascinating peice about national mourning and the Estonia disaster at the end with all the Main page editing, has it been deleted by some fool in eror? I thought it gave a very thoughtful and rather moving perspective. One can't beat a good funeral, lots of black and weeping (I change the plans for my own on a daily basis) There's still a photo that illustrates the funeral - it seems a litle lost without the text referring to it - rather like bowing to an empty hearse. It was just short but telling and moving (I weep). There was a quote from somebody Enlgish I think, probably a good thing with all the Swedish sources, can some-one re-insert it. Giano | talk 21:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

My removal of the second half of that quote seems to have inspired the removal of the remainder of it, perhaps, and I'm certainly not convinced I was right about even removing that much. I too think it should come back. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I concur. Bring back the massively morbid melancholia. (I didn't think it was morbid, but the alliteration appealed to me.) KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It's back. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Omnes gentes plaudite manibus jubilate Deo in voce exultationis Giano | talk 07:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Örnen / Eagle

I added the actual name of the balloon, Örnen, the first time it is mentioned in the text. Throughout the text, it is referred to as Eagle rather than Örnen. Do the sources about the expedition in English language, maybe primarily the translations of the diaries from the expedition, refer to the ballon as Eagle or Örnen? The 11th edition of EB does unfortunately not mention the balloon's name [5]. Are there any other sources saying the name of the balloon was referred to as Eagle in the English language before the film "The Flight of the Eagle"? // Habj 09:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Of the contemporary news clips at [6] I found one that mentions both Ornen and Eagle [7] and two mentioning only Eagle [8] [9] so yes the translation of the name is old but most news items on the expedition does not mention the name. The article by Dave Mullington at balloonlife.com [10] mentions Eagle once as a translation, then says Ornen throughout the text. I see no strong case for either version but an easy way out is to change some of the mentioning of the name of the balloon to "the balloon", lessening the impression that Eagle was the actual name. // Habj 10:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Optimistic homing pigeons

Why was it an optimistic hope that pigeons bred in Norway would return home? That is the bases of all use of homing pigeons. Was the distance in fact too long, was it too cold, is there any other reason to deem the trust in homing pigeons as optimistic - or is it just an opinon? // Habj 16:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It was proven to be optimistic thnking, since none of the pigeons made it back to their home. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

There was only sea beneath them, that's why it was optimistic. It was horrendously far (check a map). Pigeons can perhaps travel farther than that, but not over open sea with no food and no water and no rest. It says it all that the one pigeon found had managed to locate a ship, where it landed to seek these things (in vain). It's not just an opinion. It was a silly publicity stunt by Aftonbladet, as foolishly optimistic as Andrée's own assertion that if snow fell on the balloon, it would "blow off". Bishonen | talk 17:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC).

OK. The current wording is much better. // Habj 17:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It is a minor point in the article and I do not find it terribly crucial, but still.

According the the Gränna museum website [11] used as reference in the article, at the 1896 expedition 30 pigeons were released from Dansköya by the Aftonbladet reporter who was with the expedition all summer at the launching site, but none arrived to Norway. According to the ship captain's diary [12] many of those pigeons did not even want to leave the island, but remained nearby the ship. I agree with the conclusion on the museum website that everyone at the time must have known that the chance that pigeons or buoys would arrive to the civilisation were slim. I suppose the chance was still worth it to take for Aftonbladet since the newspaper would have loved a news bill saying they hade a message from Andrée. The cost of breeding and bringing these pigeons must, in comparison, have been minor. It might be me who do not understand the nuances, but IMO the word "optimistic" might bring the impression that the decision to bring the pigeons was based on a foolish belief that most of these pigeons would arrive safely. // Habj 19:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The Svea test journeys

Regarding the test flights, there are two things in the article which I will try to correct: 1. In the article it says: «The main purpose of Andrée's Svea flights was to test and perfect the drag-rope steering technique that he had invented and wanted to use on his projected North Pole expedition.» In the book Med Örnen mot polen (1930) it says (p. 38) that he first used the drag-rope on the sixth of the nine journeys, and it even seems that the sixth journey was the only journey on which drag ropes were used, as on page 45 it says that his only argument for the steerability was his journey in the 14 july 1894. It also seems that he had not thought about testing his idea when he started the testing. On page 42 it is indicated the impulse for testing this technique in practice was a discussion that he had with Adolf Erik Nordenskiöld the 19 march, 9 months after the first flight with Svea. 2. It also says «Moreover, his drag ropes would persistently snap, fall off, become entangled with each other, or get stuck to the ground, which could result in pulling the often low-flying balloon down into a dangerous bounce.» This is not mentioned in Med Örnen mot polen, but it says on page 61 that some people thought that drag-ropes might get stuck, which made Andrée use the screw holds, although he thought it was unnecessary, as he did nod not share the belief that the ropes might get stuck. Battra 17:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The page "Andrées färder" on the website of Svenska ballongfederationen (Swedish Ballooning Federation) used as a reference says [13] says Under några färder gjorde han försök att styra ballongen med hjälp av en släplina (during some of the voyages, he tried steering the ballon with a guiding rope /drag-rope). The website specifically mentions drag-ropes on Svea voyage number three and six. According to as user at svwiki, it says in Med Örnen mot polen that Andrée was in the middle of the Svea test flight when he started to try out the drag ropes (sv:Diskussion:Andrées polarexpedition#Släplinor med mera från ballong.org. I changed the wordings in article accordingly. // Habj 17:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Oops, double posting with Battra above. Well, I guess it looks better to leave it than to strike it through... // Habj 17:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Good, you changed the article so I didn't have too. The book apparently was wrong in saying that drag-rope was used the first time on the sixth journey, since it was used at least on the third journey too. Anyway, it seems the the possibilities to steer the baloon was mainly studied on the sixth journey. Then a kind of sail was also used. Battra 18:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Habj. Sven Lundström, Vår position är ej synnerligen god..., p. 13, mentions "several" drag rope journeys, presumably meaning more than two. Battra, it may be worth mentioning that I actually use Med Örnen mot polen as little as possible as a source, and only where it's confirmed by other books, because it's such a whitewash job. It's a hagiography of the dead heroes. It's extremely valuable for the full diary transcripts, but the background stuff, which comprises two thirds of the text, well... that's persistently skewed to make Andrée's judgement look good. The mastermind behind the book is Gurli Linder, Andrée's mistress, who when he didn't return made it her mission for the rest of her life to polish his halo and to keep any criticism at bay (see Lundström, p. 174). Anyway, the hand-picked writers in Med Örnen aren't going to mention any mishaps, or any situation making Andrée look undignified. The "bounce" thing comes from Lundström, though I can't put my hand on the page reference right now. The unreliability of Med Örnen isn't my opinion (though I do think it's common sense), it comes (mainly) from Sven Lundström. Lundström is a specialist, in that he's the curator of the Grenna museum, and his account is a hundred times more neutral in tone that Med Örnen. I'm sure, though, that it's true that Andrée did think the screw holds unnecessary. His ropes had gotten stuck and caused bounces quite frequently before, but he figured, in his irrepressible way, that that would never happen on ice. Did you notice the bit about how he thought drag ropes especially good in the Arctic, because of the low friction (=ice)? I think he must have been picturing something like Lake Mälaren on a good day for skating, poor man. Bishonen | talk 18:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC).

Hmm, but wouldn't the supposedly low friction make it difficult to steer the balloon...? I agree that Med örnen mot polen hardly is unbiased, as it is full av patriotism and heroism and is missing the criticism that has come after the book (1930). If serious problems with the drag-ropes really was "forgotten" it might be good to take the book with more than a pinch of salt of course, though I hope that the quotations given in the "background part" are not falsified at least. Battra 20:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Slightly off topic, but that is exactly my thought also regarding the low friction. // Habj 09:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Right. The whole point of drag ropes is that they work (insofar as they work at all) by friction, and here, when it suits him, Andrée is suddenly citing low friction as an advantage. I thought that was amusing and characteristic, as also his other arguments at that point — his whole snow job at the Vetenskapsakademien. Er, Habj, I don't quite see how your sentence (uh, not a real sentence) about the stability of the latent image is relevant to the subject at hand. It seems more like a general observation or random factoid. Bishonen | talk 01:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC).

Er, I removed it from the article about Andrée where it fitted worse since it is certainly not about Andrée himself... anyone who does not like it here, remove it. *shrug* // Habj 02:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Watch out! I'm about to defend Andrée! Just because it's low-friction doesn't mean it's no-friction, and the amount of friction needed to steer might be quite low. Take for example ice boats, gliding over a low-friction surface and steering just fine, or for that matter, regular sail boats in fairly-low-friction water. OK, now I'll stop defending Andrée and point out that ice boats have runners and sailboats have a keel, and those are devices designed to selectively increase friction perpendicular to the direction of travel, which really helps when it comes to steering. Andrée's plan steers at best as a keel-less sailboat, which is pretty much... hardly at all, yes. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

little contradiction?

The first paragraph of the part "On foot on the ice" stated Strindberg took about 200 photos with his seven-kilogram (15 lb) camera over the course of the three months they spent on the pack ice, one of the most famous being his picture of Strindberg and Frænkel contemplating the fallen Eagle (see image above), but the description of this photography states that it pictures Andrée and Frænkel, and that Strindberg was that photographer. It seems logical that it was Andrée and not Strindberg on the picture, so I corrected the article. Saihtam 12:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Phonograph recording?

In the biography of Nils Strindberg written by Tyrone Martinsson it is mentioned on page 166-167 that “Svenska Hjälpföreningen” in New York had set up a phonograph recoding session in which Nils Strindberg and S.A Andrée took part (among others), Nils speech is typed out in the book (from one of his letters to his brother, written 30 April 1897). In his speech he talks about the expedition. Andrées speech is not texted, only Oscar Strindberg mentions that Andrée talked about his American sympathies. The phonograph recoding was to be played at an affair to benefit poor Swedes living in America, a charity event if you will. This is mentioned by Nils father Oscar in a letter. Does anyone know if such a recording still exists? I know these phonograph recordings were very fragile so the odds are probably against it. (Fastson 16:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC))

Well, it might exist, no doubt. But I've never heard of any extant version, and I read some ten books and articles when I researched this page, so the odds are I probably would have. Also, Martinsson is an academic writing his dissertation; I think the whereabouts of any extant version is the kind of thing that he would naturally tend to mention in it. Bishonen | talk 18:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC).

The New York Public Library (www.nypl.org) has an outstanding collection -- better than most research universities -- and its catalog can be searched online, I believe. That would be in special collections, but the record, if it survives, would be either there or in the Library of Congress. NYPL does an excellent job of archiving, so, if it ever entered their possession, it's likely to exist and be playable. Geogre 19:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

thumb sizing

Someone reverted my slightly bold application of the wikipedia manual of style to thumbnail images, with the comment that it wasn't discussed. I'm a bit surprised by this, as I wouldn't have guessed discussion was warranted to follow the rules.

The reverter's summary indicates my edit makes most of the images too tiny to be discerned at a normal screen resolution. Well, yes: a thumbnail isn't meant to show detail. One is supposed to click on the thumbnail to see it at higher resolution. Also, it could be that your thumbnail size setting is too small. (Click on my preferences, then Files and select a larger Thumbnail size.) One of the reasons for the existence of this preference is to accommodate slow internet connections. That becomes even more important for an image-intensive page like this. — EncMstr 08:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not "the rules", it's a recommendation, so I'll discuss a little all the same. The recommendation says "the default thumbnail width can be set in the preferences, so it is recommended not to specify "px", in order to respect the users' preferences (unless, for a special reason, a specific size is required regardless of preferences, or a size is specified outside the range of widths 120–300px that can be set in the preferences)". I take your point that it's up to the user to set their image size preferences, even though I suppose most wikipedians, and practically all passing readers, simply use the default setting, as Uppland does. But there is indeed a special reason to set the lead image in pixels: its proportions. I myself have a good big thumbnail size set in my preferences, 250 px, but even with that width, the lead image becomes absurdly tiny. When I originally designed this featured article, I set that famous photo of Andrée and Frænkel with the crashed balloon on the polar icecap at 400 px. Being so low and wide, it doesn't look especially big like that at the most common screen resolutions. If it has to be a default thumb, I'd sooner not see it in the article at all. When it was on the front page, the FA director Raul654 agreed with me that this lead image couldn't be treated like other front page article images (these are always set at 100px), and I exchanged it for this one—a suitably cropped, nice square image for the purpose. I do think, though, that the present image is far and away the best choice for the lead. It's very famous and very haunting, and was the first picture from the disastrous expedition to be published, in 1930, and it's reproduced all over the place; for instance, it's in the logo of the Andrée Museum. I'd sooner you simply removed it, rather than have it as a toy balloon crashed in somebody's wintry backyard. Bishonen | talk 15:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC).

Tiny little holes, snow-cpas and icing

I find the emphasis on the loss of gas a bit overweight compared to other reasons for loss of buoyancy.

OK, so the balloon was bleeding gas. Fair enough. But if Ekholm's calculations are correct, and even considering that gas loss was far more severe, the discrepancy of 17 days and less than 3 days is striking.

Regarding snow, I once read (don't know where) that Andrée had a moveable "cap" put on top of Örnen so that snow build-up could be shaken off. It is not mentioned in the article; was it actually there?

Which brings me to the third point, the effect of waterlogging or icing. This is very much understated in the article, but the one explicit mention of waterlogging seems to suggest that this contributed to the early demise to a considerable part (It might be possible to do a crude calculation, to the order of magnitude perhaps, of the weight the balloon would accumulate by soaking up fog). I think that an explicit reference to icing/waterlogging was even made before the landing, as per the diaries; this could be checked out.

That is not to say that the expedition would not have failed in any case, but based on the little "semi-hard" data on gas loss, it would seem that they could have made it twice as far as they did (82°N or so) before trouble started in earnest. By Ekholm's estimate applied to the travel speeds before the bumpy part of the balloon ride began would suggest that the buoyancy at the "ground" rate of gas loss was just shy of sufficient to make it from 80°N to 80°N trans-Pole.

It is not clear how good Ekholm's data is - or is it clear? The text is ambiguous as regards to whether the "anomalies" (i.e. Andrée cheating his way to an early death) are affecting the "17 days" figure. In any case, it is neither clear how one can be so sure about the rate of gas loss. So it might be petter to make it a bit less explicit and use a neural terminology like "loss of buoyancy" more often, because that way it is certainly correct. 87.78.11.155 (talk) 23:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)