Wikipedia:Peer review/Nansen's Fram expedition/archive1

Nansen's Fram expedition

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This account of Nansen's most famous Arctic voyage has been written from scratch. Members of Project Norway have helpfully chipped in. Generally it's a joint effort, with me looking after the text and Ruhrfisch doing the maps and charts. These are still being developed, but the prose is ready for review. All comments and suggestions welcomed. Thanks, Brianboulton (talk) 17:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments: Looks like a solid effort.

Lede: "artefacts" The distinctive UK spelling will raise eyebrows among US readers. Perhaps "debris", or as you have it in the body "relics"?

• "sunk off Siberia" Fair size territory, that. I gather the northern coast? Suggest saying "northern" or "Arctic".
• "Fram'" May want to specify in the lede that this is a Norwegian word, as I imagine this is.
• Final sentence of lede sounds very vague to me.

Background: "their leader". Perhaps say "captain" or "DeLong"?

Preparations: Was Nansen certain enough that the ship would pass across the pole to say "probably"? Small point, big ocean.

• Nansen's words show that he was extremely confident; "probably" is a little on the cautious side. Brianboulton (talk) 18:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• "Christiania Geographical Society". Was this the society's name then? the article that this pipes to isn't clear on that point. It might be nice if you could manoeuver the text to make it clear that Christiania was Oslo, not just that the meeting was held there. You do refer to the expedition leaving Christiania later on.

• "Lieut. David Brainerd" Is it conventional to abbr. his title like this?
• "being nipped by the ice" Nipped? If that is a technical term for ice doing something nasty to a ship, perhaps a more lay term would be in order, like "crushed" or "violently done to destruction as in all the best sci-fi movies"
• Reasons why Nansen wouldn't take the money. Is it worth mentioning that it would have been bad politically for Nansen to take money from a Swede, given the political situation with Norwegian nationalism on the rise? For the same reasons, instead of national expedition, say "entirely Norwegian expedition" and insert "Norwegian" before "government"?

• "private subscriptions". I more commonly see this as "private subscription".
• "King Oscar" Oscar II, no?
• "an Englishman, Charles Dick" I'd simply say "Englishman Charles Dick", unless you are afraid that "Englishman" would be seen as part of his name ...
• "forestall him". Not 100 percent sure this is the best word, I know you mean "get there first", but that wouldn't actually stop Nansen from going.
  • I tend to think it is the best word available. He almost certainly wouldn't have got the financial support if, say, a Russian or American expedition had got in first, and I doubt he'd have wanted to go anyway, in those circumstances. Brianboulton (talk) 18:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• "ratio of" Perhaps state what a more typical ship would have a ratio of?
  • Neither Nansen nor Huntford give a typical ratio, they just say that Fram's ration of length to beam was unusual. I can add a footnote giving, by way of comparison, Discovery's ratio (one-fifth) but I don't want to magnify the point or do a lot of OR. Brianboulton (talk) 18:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
• "Lars Petterson" I take his nationality was discovered after sailing? I'd say, one way or the other.
  • It's not clear. Huntford says "his shipmates soon rumbled him" but doesn't say when. Brianboulton (talk) 18:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

More later. Very well written, I am having trouble finding stuff to criticize.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Voyage. "On 9 September a wide lead opened up," This may be unclear to the non-sailor.

• Revolution in polar travel methods: It may be a good idea to mention that these methods were widely adopted by later expeditions, if so.
  • This point is covered in the Assessment section. Brianboulton (talk) 18:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
• "Greely's" Even though Greely is previously mentioned, I'd wikilink it again, it has been a long time.
• "his intention publicly" perhaps "his intention to the crew"?
• "Thereafter Nansen thoroughly" After which date? I imagine 28 February, but it is unclear. Suggest "after the abortive departures" or similar language.
• "It was becoming increasingly doubtful whether they had sufficient food to enable them to reach the pole and then make the journey to Franz Josef Land, unless the surface improved." Awkward. Suggest, "Unless the surface improved, they might not have enough food to let them reach the pole and journey to Franz Josef Land."
• ", launched the kayaks which they fashioned into a catamaran by lashing sledges and skis across them," Again, awkward. Perhaps "converted the kayaks into a catamaran by lashing sledges and skis across them"?
• Map: maybe include on it Cape Felder and Eira Harbor?
  • I'll have to consult my esteemed map-maker, but I see no problem here. Brianboulton (talk) 18:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
• More later.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• Kayaks drifting away. The plural is used. But Nansen retrieves "the craft". Were they in the form of a catamaran again?
• "Drift (phase 2)" The first drift subsection is named "Drift (first phrase)". Perhaps come up with a different title for one subsection or the other, then eliminate the whole first/second?
  • I've regularised the titles, but I can't honestly think of better ways of heading the sections. Any inspiration on your part would be most welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 18:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
• "Fram had become a floating oceanographic" Fram wasn't then floating, the ice was floating.
• Nansen right and his detractors wrong: Yes, he got the fact of the drift right, but didn't Fram come out rather further east than expected?
  • Maybe it did, but the sources are silent on this issue. Perhaps if Sverdrup had let nature take its course instead of trying to break out once Fram neared Spitsbergen, she would have drifted further west? That is speculation, however. Brianboulton (talk) 18:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I really don't have anything more. Excellent read. I had to read it twice, once to find out what happened and then in detail for this review. Well done!--Wehwalt (talk) 01:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comments, most helpful. I will address them shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 08:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I have addressed them all. Where there is no comment you can take it that I have more or less adopted your suggestions. I have commented on all other issues. Thanks once again. Brianboulton (talk) 18:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

New section

• "On 28 October it became evident that the ice would not break up, and the dogs were moved from the ship to kennels on the ice. On 5 October the rudder was raised to a position of safety..." If the dates are correct, it might be well to reverse the order, such that it reads chronologically.
  • 28 October was a mistake. Should have been 28 September. Brianboulton (talk) 18:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
• "He committed suicide within a year of his return to Norway." From where? From Antarctica, perhaps? Not necessary, but it would read better, I think. We have him quarreling with Amundsen, but we don't know where.
  • Prose fixes should clarify these points. Brianboulton (talk) 18:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
• "...a four-month voyage in the sealer Viking, ..." I'd have said aboard the sealer, not in. ('On the sealer' would work, too.)
• "working as a curator in the Bergen Museum" In the museum, or at?
  • Thes last two points also fixed. Brianboulton (talk) 18:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

- Hordaland (talk) 05:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for these helpful comments which I will address shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 08:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Throughout the lede, Fram is referred to as "it". Most ships in the rest of the article are she/her.

• Made it she/her for ships throughout, unless in a quote. Brianboulton (talk) 18:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for responding to my nitpicking! Here's another: "In the face of much discouragement from regular polar explorers Nansen took his ship..."

I stop up at the word regular. Are these people who regularly explore polar areas? Regular as in ordinary explorers? Since Nansen had already done his Greenland trek and thus could himself be called a "polar explorer", perhaps it could say "...much discouragement from other polar explorers..." - Hordaland (talk) 15:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The word "regular" was used in the sense of "following normal practice". But you're right - its meaning could be misunderstood, so I have adopted your suggestion. And please don't stop "nitpicking"; your suggestions are much appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 16:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to those who gave suggestions/advice in this review. It seems unlikely that there will be further contributions now, so I will probably nominate it at FAC later today, or tomorrow. Ruhrfisch has agreed to co-nom (he did the maps and charts). Brianboulton (talk) 07:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)