Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nansen's Fram expedition/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 19:38, 27 October 2009.

Nansen's Fram expedition

 * Nominator(s):Brianboulton (talk), Ruhrfisch (talk)

This is a joint effort; the text is largely mine, while the maps are the work of Ruhrfisch, who has agreed to co-nom. Nansen made only one attempt on the North Pole, yet his flair and imagination ensured him recognition as one of the architects of modern polar exploration. This is the story of that one expedition. Now read on... Brianboulton (talk) 18:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Support All requirements are met-- the only thing I would change is moving the route map further down and replacing it with an illustrative photo. Shii (tock) 06:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I switched the map to the top during the peer review process, because I thought it relatively more important than "Fram leaving Bergen", the original lead image. If others concur, and my co-nom agrees, this can easily be restored. Brianboulton (talk) 09:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks too - I can see the route map as either the lead image or in the section actually describing the voyages. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 11:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a style issue that's up to you. I'm mainly thinking about where people's eyes will go to get a brief summary of "what" this article is, and when they will want to look at the actual route (during the middle or end of the article). The map isn't as pretty as the old photos, either ;) Shii (tock) 18:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * We've done the switch. If no one comments adversely we will probably leave it there. Brianboulton (talk) 23:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Support I was one of the peer reviewers, I reviewed to FAC standards, and my issues were addressed. Those interested can look at my comments at the peer review page, which obviously there it no point in repeating. The article is compelling, well written, and meets all FA standards in my view. It deserves promotion.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Leaning towards support but I just finished copyediting this yesterday and feel it's too fresh in my memory to give it an objective review quite yet. A few quick comments: I will give this a few days' distance before rereading and offering any further comments. As always, it's interesting and well done. Poor doggies. Maralia (talk) 16:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) I changed the presentation of the Woods Hole citation, as I was able to find the author's name and moved the 'project' name to the work= parameter. Just pointing this out in case you see any problem with my change; I made it in a single edit so it's easily revertable if something is off.
 * 2) Regarding the lead image: I think it would be immensely helpful to indicate that all the movements were in a counterclockwise direction; once I understood that, it was much easier to interpret the map. I had a hard time distinguishing the pink from the red, though.
 * 3) There are two instances where "he wrote" is rather awkwardly appended after a quotation of a full sentence that ends with ending punctuation (in one case an exclamation point, and in the other, a full stop). I'm sure you can find a more elegant way to present these.
 * Thanks for yourcopyedits and comments. I will work on adding arrows to the map (may upload the png version first as I need help with svg files). Also realize I did not thank for converting two of the maps to svg and  for the third in svg. Would a more purple shade work? Or how about brown? Ruhrfisch  &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 17:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have reworded each of the "he wrote" formats. I echo Ruhrfisch's thanks for your copyediting. Brianboulton (talk) 17:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I switched to the png version of the map for now, with the magenta (pink) line replaced by purple. Is this clearer? Will work on arrows next, then svg. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 18:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, the purple is much easier to distinguish from the red. Thanks also for shifting 'Taymyr Peninsula' so the latter word is no longer obscured by the coastline. Maralia (talk) 20:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * (Note to Ruhrfisch: the words 'Taymyr Peninsula' could be made small, like the rivers. Brianboulton (talk) 21:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC))
 * (Thanks, will do Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC))
 * I have added arrowheads to the map and made the Taymyr Peninsula label smaller - may have to WP:BYC to see the changes. If it looks OK, I will attempt to convert it to svg. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 15:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Looks very well written. I was wondering how they navigated in the barren and changing landscape, I saw the word 'sextant' twice but it was not wikilinked? I'm also assuming that it was permanent daylight at that time of year so no star fixes available. No useful maps available to the team either? Rather them than me! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)   00:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Nansen had a sextant and a theodolyte (both terms are linked in the article). Of course, his ability to navigate accurately on the return journey was hampered because at one point both their watches had stopped. The only map they had was the incomplete one of Franz Josef Land, as described (and linked in Note 5) Brianboulton (talk) 10:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * So they are, my apologies, my edit>find tool was blotting out the blue! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)   18:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I just had a glance at the other Arctic expedition articles, it strikes me that none of them have an infobox, I like to see the basic facts at the top of an article, many readers probably don't get past the lead in reality. It's a suggestion really for the project but I do think that an infobox could improve an already comprehensive article. The infobox in the Rolls-Royce Merlin article is an example of what I am thinking of. Adapted, it could contain the nationality of the team/leader, destination, ships used, personalities, date range, outcome etc. It would also fill the white space right of the TOC. Just a suggestion. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    00:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Question "Nansen chose a party of just twelve from the thousands of applications that poured in from all over the world. One of these was from the 20-year-old Roald Amundsen, the future conqueror of the South Pole, whose mother stopped him from going." Was Amundsen one of applicants or one of the selected twelve? Jfire (talk) 04:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Slight rewording should clarify. Brianboulton (talk) 10:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Support meets all the requirements of an FA. Dincher (talk) 23:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose on criterion 3


 * File:Fram Bergen 1893.jpg - I'm confused why the date for this image is listed as 1914, while the description says 1893. Also, if this image was first published in London, we need a license indicating why it is PD in the UK since images on Commons have to be PD in the US and the host country.


 * File:Fridtjof Nansen - Project Gutenberg eText 13103.jpg - Where was this book first published? We need to establish the country of origin for the photo.


 * File:Nansen's Planned Drift map.svg - Please add a source for the route on the map.


 * File:ColinArcher.jpg - If this image was first published in London, we need a license indicating why it is PD in the UK since images on Commons have to be PD in the US and the host country.


 * File:Johansen1893.jpg - Please add the complete source information to the source field on the image description page.


 * File:Fram March 1894.jpg - If this image was first published in London, we need a license indicating why it is PD in the UK since images on Commons have to be PD in the US and the host country.


 * File:Nansen Johansen depart 14 March 1895.jpg - If this image was first published in London, we need a license indicating why it is PD in the UK since images on Commons have to be PD in the US and the host country.


 * File:CapeFloraMeeting.jpg - If this image was first published in London, we need a license indicating why it is PD in the UK since images on Commons have to be PD in the US and the host country.


 * File:Fram in ice 1896.jpg - If this image was first published in London, we need a license indicating why it is PD in the UK since images on Commons have to be PD in the US and the host country.


 * File:FramcrewOslo1896.jpg - If this image was first published in London, we need a license indicating why it is PD in the UK since images on Commons have to be PD in the US and the host country.

These issues should be relatively easy to fix. Awadewit (talk) 03:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Responses
 * The 1914 date was a simple mistake due to temporary brain fatigue. I have corrected it to 1893
 * The Gutenberg book was first published by T Wolmer in London, in 1897, so presumably the same comment applies as you have made on the other London-published images.
 * Planned drift map: I have added the source from which the planned drift route was drawn
 * Johansen.1893: I have added the full source information as requested
 * With regard to the other images there is no doubt that they are PD in the United States. I did not transfer these images to Commons, and perhaps they should not be there? I am no expert on images, and the politics of the business confuses me. If you would indicate what licences Commons requires, e.g. PD-old, I will add as appropriate.

Brianboulton (talk) 12:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I transferred the old images from the English Wikipedia to Commons so we could have a Commonscat template in the article. I will work on the images. Awadewit - the svg maps are derivative images (from png versions). Are these OK as is? Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 12:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Fridtjof Nansen died in 1930, so for all the images from Nansen's book Farthest North published in the UK in 1897, I added a PD-Old license with the rationale that it was over 70 years since the death of the author. I note that the book was also published by Harper in the US in 1897 with the same illustrations here, so if need be those versions of the images could be uploaded to Commons (that would be a last resort - too much work and Brian's scans are nicer on the two images I checked). Looking online, there also seems to have been a Norwegian edition in 1897, but I am not sure which was the first to be published.
 * The only image I am not sure about is File:Fridtjof Nansen - Project Gutenberg eText 13103.jpg. I tried searching for the author's date of death, but did not find it or any biography on her. I ran Check Usage on it and it is used a dozen times in eight different Wikipedias. We could copy it here for use on the English Wikipedia (as it was published before 1923 and is PD-US). I will clean up its information. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 15:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * PS My first post of this had the wrong year for the publications - I have corrected it to 1897 (my thanks to Brain and my apologies to all). A link to the Norwegian edition can be found here. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 15:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I have uploaded File:Nansen.PNG here on the English Wikipedia and put it into the article for now as a replacement for File:Fridtjof Nansen - Project Gutenberg eText 13103.jpg. If it is not needed, please let me know so that I can delete it. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 15:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Upload is not needed - I have added the "anonymous-EU" tag at Commons. I've stricken my oppose - thanks for taking care of this so promptly! Awadewit (talk) 18:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much! Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 19:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

For clarification: is the image review now complete and satisfactory? Brianboulton (talk) 12:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes - that is why I struck my oppose. Sorry I wasn't clearer. Awadewit (talk) 22:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.