Wikipedia:Peer review/Amundsen's South Pole expedition/archive1

Amundsen's South Pole expedition
This peer review discussion has been closed.. 14 December 2011 is the centenary of Roald Amundsen's arrival at the South Pole. It would be good to see this important anniversary celebrated on Wikipedia's main page, but first the article has to be featured. Together with User:Apterygial and User:One Ton Depot I have been working to bring it up to standard. I believe it's not far off now, and would welcome some disinterested feedback. Brianboulton (talk) 23:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Yomangani's comments

I'll try to give it a proper read through next week. A couple of things that stand out on a quick skim: More later... Yomangani talk 01:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The bolding in the first sentence seems a bit arbitrary (why not be radical and not bold anything or bold everything from "expedition" to "South Pole")
 * We will give this further thought. Brianboulton (talk) 16:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd try to avoid quoting Amundsen (or any of the Norwegians) as much as possible unless they are in English in the original or you can provide the Norwegian.
 * I think it is OK to quote Amundsen direct from his The South Pole, since although the English words are Chater's, Amundsen may reasonably be assumed to have approved the text. I will paraphrase words put into his or any of the Norwegians' mouths by other writers (Langner, Huntford etc). Brianboulton (talk) 16:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That sounds fair enough. Yomangani talk 09:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No source for Shackleton's Daily Mail quote ("perhaps the greatest polar explorer of today")
 * added Brianboulton (talk) 16:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Cherry-Garrard's quote isn't quite contemporary and Kathleen Scott's quote seems a bit out of place just before the section on her husband's death. I'd imagine it would be a bit of a nightmare trying to rework that section to either side of the news of Scott's death, but it seems a bit clunky as it is.
 * Further work will be done on this Brianboulton (talk) 16:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What is McPhee's source for Amundsen being relieved to hear that the Terra Nova didn't have a short wave wireless? I'm sure he was, but who said it?
 * I didn't write this part, so I'll consult my co-editor Brianboulton (talk) 21:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * McPhee doesn't specifically cite sources, but Langner notes the same thing (I have both of these books in front of me). I don't have access to Huntford's book at the moment, but from memory he mentions it also. I would assume the original source would be Amundsen's diary. Apterygial (talk) 23:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The modern photo of Funchal doesn't do much for me.
 * Me neither. Gone. Brianboulton (talk) 21:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "Despite his eagerness to start out again Amundsen waited until mid-October and the first hint of spring—the sighting of a petrel." The petrels were sighted at the end of September.
 * Well, according to Huntford they appeared in "early October". But Amundsen says September, and he was there so he should know. I have removed references to the petrels
 * "On 12 December they were momentarily alarmed by a black object that appeared on the horizon, but this proved to be dogs' droppings magnified by mirage" Amundsen doesn't mention this and it seems a bit odd. Perhaps leave it out as it takes too much explaining to make clear what happened. (unless you are pandering to the dog poo fans).
 * Huntford is the source of this story. I assume he got it from Hassel, whose account of the journey is the only one, other than Amundsen's, that Huntford lists in his bibliography. I'm sure the old brute didn't make it up. The story is inconsequential, but Amundsen's polar trek was, shall we say, a little short on variety. It is I suppose a little pathetic to have to resort to dogshit to make things interesting, but I don't see the harm in keeping the story. It's only a few words in the narrative, is sourced, and does spice things up just a little. Brianboulton (talk) 21:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * A rather grudging acknowledgement from The Times on March 9 1912 in case it is of any use: From the telegrams now received there is little room for doubt that Captain Amundsen has reached the South Pole. From the English point of view he may not have "played the game"; we can not forget the secrecy under which for months he shrouded his intention to steal a march on the man who had for years been making his preparations to attain the coveted goal. This was all the more unnecessary, for no one would have welcomed co-operation in the work of South Polar exploration more than Captain Scott. Unfortunately Captain Amundsen notified the latter of his intention too late for Captain Scott to get in communication with him. Still, no one who knows Captain Amundsen can have any doubt of his integrity, and since he states he has reached the Pole we are bound to believe him. For the present we have only the bare fact that he has done so; whether during his journey there and back he made any discoveries of importance we can only learn on the publication of his narrative. One thing we know - he had nothing else in view save a "dash for the Pole." He had no intention of carrying out scientific investigations ; he was unhampered with the heavy equipment required for this purpose; he had nothing to think of but his dogs, his sledges, his provisions and clothing.
 * Good quote; do you have either an online link, or the page number? Brianboulton (talk) 22:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "Captain Amundsen's Achievement. Work Of Previous Explorers." The Times Saturday, Mar 09, 1912; pg. 5; Issue 39842; col F. It is available online at the Times Digital Archive but it is by subscription and I suspect my link somehow conceals some details of my login, so I won't post it on the off-chance. Yomangani talk 09:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't have to have the online link. You've provided enough for me to be able to give a full citation. Brianboulton (talk) 23:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "Huntford points out that Scott was a much better writer than Amundsen: "[Scott's] literary talent was his trump. It was as if he had reached out from his buried tent and taken revenge."" This might be true, but Amundsen was writing in Norwegian and what is being judged is the English translation by Chater. Perhaps drop the apples and oranges comparison for something shorter, on the lines of "Huntsford points out that "[Scott's] literary talent was his trump. It was as if he had reached out from his buried tent and taken revenge.""
 * Yes, done. Brianboulton (talk) 22:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "Scott and four comrades, Amundsen learned, had reached the pole on 17 January 1912, but had perished during their return journey, on or around 29 March 1912." Bowers, Wilson and Scott, on or around the 29th March but Oates and Evans had died earlier of course. I can't think of a nice way to reword this, perhaps you could just drop the "on or around 29 March 1912".
 * How about something like "Amundsen learned that Scott and four comrades had reached the pole on 17 January 1912, but had all perished by 29 March, during their return journey?" Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 19:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've adopted that as a sensible solution. Brianboulton (talk) 22:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The two sections on the Eastern party and the Fram under "End of the expedition" break the flow and, I would imagine, make it quite confusing for uninitiated, especially as the subsequent paragraph sees Amundsen on board Fram again. Unless you are paying attention to the dates it seems a bit of a mess. Perhaps they can be sectioned off under "Other achievements" or something similar to allow Amundsen to pack up and leave directly after returning from the pole. Or the paragraph on "Informing the world" could be moved into the "Aftermath" section.
 * I have moved "Informing the World" so that it immediately follows Amundsen's return to Framheim. I have put the Eastern party and the Fram voyage under "Other expedition achievements". Does that resolve the matter satisfactorily? Brianboulton (talk) 22:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It does for me. Yomangani talk 09:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It is a very nice article by the way, in case you think I have nothing but nitpicks. Clear with good mix of overview and illuminating detail and it carries the reader along nicely.


 * Thank you for these comments; I am working on them. I look forward to any further comments you have. Brianboulton (talk) 15:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments Looks very good to me - I did some typo and template fixes yesterday and now amd reading more closely. Here are some nitpicks More to come Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I would link Fram in the lead
 * Should there be a hatnote (see also? Main article?) link to Nansen's Fram expedition at the top of the Nansen and Fram section?
 * It seems odd that Thorvald Nilson has a red link and Frederick Gjertsen has no link at all.
 * I added the red link and I would have added one for Gjertsen too if I'd noticed he was unlinked. Yomangani talk 09:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Since there is a comment that Peary's Farthest North is now in doubt, it seems odd in the Change of plans section that there is no similar comment or note that both Cook and Peary's claims to have reached the North Pole are now doubted.
 * The section includes the words: "Although he avoided the controversy over the respective claims of Cook and Peary..." As it happens, at that time (and for at least half a century) Peary's claim was not doubted. Cook's was, and indeed was soon undermined by evidence. It's complicated; I thought it best simply to refer to the "controversy". Brianboulton (talk) 23:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I must confess that I knew the claims were doubted now, but not exactly sure as to when the doubt set in. I think the text is fine as is, but wonder if a brief explanatory note might help for those who are fuzzy on the exact details (basically saying that the claim of Cook was soon doubted and undermined, but Peary's was accepted until YEAR. If I recall correctly, aren't there even some who think Amundsen was also one of the first to undisputedly reach the North Pole as well (albeit by air)? Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Missing word? ''his was the southernmost point in the Ross Sea to which a ship could penetrate, a full degree [or] 60 nautical miles (110 km) closer to the Pole than Scott's base at McMurdo Sound.[43]
 * Needs a ref at the end of the sentence as a direct quote ''The tents—"the strongest and most practical that have ever been used"—had built-in floors and required a single pole.
 * Should some comment be made here that there was much longer daylight at this time than usually experienced in non-polar regions? now felt their pace could be lifted, and the men took to travelling 15 nautical miles (28 km), stopping for six hours, and repeating, regardless of day and night.[139] (I assume night was not dark, or else how would they have traveled)
 * Add a word to this sentence about the Japanese ship for clarity ''This was the first landing [there?] from the sea; attempts by Discovery, Nimrod and Terra Nova had all failed.[154]
 * Thanks for reviewing this. I've dealt with these points more or less as you suggest, bar the one where I have commented. Looking forward to the rest. Brianboulton (talk) 23:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Overall very nicely done. I feel as if I was able to be more critical in the latter part of the article - will try re-reading it and seeing if anything else comes to mind. Please let me know when it is at FAC and I will be glad to support. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * More comments from Ruhrfisch
 * Would an image of the Fram be out of place? I know there are some free images of the ship...
 * I have added an image of the ship. Brianboulton (talk) 22:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Would the Initial reactions section be better titled as something like Contempoarary reactions? It seems as if there is at least a several month period covered there
 * That is certainly a better title. I have a little more work to do on this section. Brianboulton (talk) 22:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not sure the average reader would know which country George V was king of in In Hobart, Amundsen received congratulatory telegrams from, among others, President Theodore Roosevelt, and from George V... (as an Anglophile I knew right away of course)
 * Yes, I think I originally identified George V, but it got edited out. I've restored it. Brianboulton (talk) 22:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed originally it as there was a link to him if anyone was in doubt and it noted his happiness that Amundsen had stopped on British soil. I think the "of England" will be tempting to the nationalists: they love the polar explorer articles for some reason (Tom Crean stayed national identity argument free for a year after I removed his disinfobox though, pity it's come back) Yomangani talk 14:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I would link Cambridge Bay or Victoria Island in the Maud caption (I am not sure where that is).
 * Both linked now. Brianboulton (talk) 22:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The lead seems a bit spare for the length of the article - also there is no mention of the other expedition achievements in the lead (my rule of thumb is to somehow include every header in the lead, even if only by a word or phrase).
 * I've added a brief mention of the expedition's other achievements. I'm not a fan of long leads, but if you think anything else of significance should be added, please let me know. Brianboulton (talk) 22:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I like the lead image of Amundsen, but wonder if it is the best lead image - I am more used to images of ice and snow and sledges and men in parkas with flags as the lead images of such polar exploration articles.
 * I've swopped the lead image for a characteristic snow scene, and moved the Amundsen pic into the body of the article. Improvement? Brianboulton (talk) 22:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Could File:At the South Pole, December 1911.jpg (currently in the body) be even more appropriate? It is, after all, one of the most famous images from the expedition, and they are actually at the South Pole. Apterygial (talk) 23:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've done this, and swopped some more images around - see what you think. Brianboulton (talk) 16:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The end of the article seems like it could use a few more images - are there any memorials / monuments to Amundsen's expedition that could be pictured here, for example?
 * Not sure there are, but I will look around. Brianboulton (talk) 22:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've not found anything new, but I've shifted one down into the penultimate section. With 15 images and a map, the article is probably sufficiently illustrated - particulary as I suspect, should it be TFA, people will try to add their own favourite pics (there are about 250 in Amundsen's book to choose from) Brianboulton (talk) 16:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Should the legacy section mention, even very briefly, the end of the Heroic Acge with the Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expedition (especially since the beginning is mentioned)?
 * The beginning of the Heroic Age is mentioned because, as a member of the Belgica expedition, Amundsen was part of that beginning. After his polar conquest he never went back to Antarctica, so the remaining expeditions of the Heroic Age, and its ending, are outside his and this expedition's story. I have briefly summarised his post-expedition activities, all of which focus on the North. Brianboulton (talk) 22:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks again, your help is greatly appreciated. I won't be nomming at FAC for a while; I need to be as sure as I can be that it won't be archived, because a 14-day delay would probably scupper any chance of grabbing the centenary date. So I'll try and get more eyes to look at it. Brianboulton (talk) 22:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Quick review based on the sections I didn't draft: Bravo. Apterygial (talk) 01:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Apterygial comments
 * "he planned a traversal of the Northwest Passage, the then-undiscovered sea route from the Atlantic to the Pacific". A question that could be raised is how he planned a traversal of something not yet discovered. Perhaps "he planned a traversal of the Northwest Passage, the then-uncharted sea route from the Atlantic to the Pacific".
 * Why Gjoa and not Gjøa?
 * "When Scott, in Norway to test his motor sledges, called at Amundsen's home to discuss cooperation the Norwegian was forced to take evasive action." I can imagine getting a question at FAC about this; what evasive action? If I recall, he simply hid.
 * "At Kristiansand, Amundsen accepted an offer of fuel and other provisions from Peter "Don Pedro" Christopherson, Norway's Minister in Buenos Aires." This reads as if he took on the fuel and other provisions at Kristiansand, while in fact he accepted the offer for Fram to take them on board at Buenos Aires in 1911. The other point worth marking here regards Don Pedro's position: I believe it was his brother who was Norway's Minister in Buenos Aires.
 * "The king expressed particular pleasure that Amundsen's first port of call on his return had been on (what was then) British soil." It's interesting that Hobart in 1912 is here called British soil, but is not now. I wonder: what has changed? Australia was federated (became a separate country, essentially) in 1901, but has not yet gained independence (become a republic). Perhaps "The king expressed particular pleasure that Amundsen's first port of call on his return had been on "British" soil."
 * First two points, no problem. Amundsen's evasive action, according to most sources, was to make himself "unavailable" when Scott phoned him for an appointment; I don't think he actually hid, though it would be a better story if he had. I've reworded the Don Pedro bit and clarified that it was indeed his bro that was the minister. On the question of "British soil", that was the king's perception, probably widely shared by most Britons and plenty of Australians too at that time, however inaccurately. I don't think putting "British" in quotes will do; readers and reviewers will ask why. So I've reworded: "The king expressed particular pleasure that Amundsen's first port of call on his return had been on British Empire soil". I think that is historically correct and reasonably paraphrases the king. Please feel free to tweak away at the prose, where you think it can be improved. Brianboulton (talk) 15:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments from
 * You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the article with that in mind. I reviewed the article as I would at FAC.
 * Background: "...aboard Belgica under Adrien de Gerlache." wouldn't that be "the Belgica"? You used "the sealer Magdalena" earlier.
 * No; the word "the" in "the sealer Magdalena" refers to the description (sealer) rather than to the ship's name. See, for example, "It was the schooner Hesperus..." (Longfellow) or, more recently, It was the good ship Venus... (anon). Brianboulton (talk) 16:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "Polar expeditions were active in both north and south during this period." Awkward phrasing... suggest "Polar expeditions to both the north and south were active in this period."
 * "...claiming a new Farthest North of 87° 6′—a record disputed by later historians." I think "claiming a new Farthest North record of 87° 6′—a record disputed by later historians." makes it a bit clearer.
 * Your suggestion appears to be identical with mine. Can you clarify? Brianboulton (talk) 16:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Mine has a "record" after "Farthest North" .. not everyone is going to realize that "Farthest North" IS a record. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes: yet another of my faculties has failed me. So sorry. Brianboulton (talk) 20:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Prep: "...Amundsen was summoned to Nansen's home, "Polhøgda", and told he could have the ship." I think the name of Nansen's house is really superflous here, don't you think? We should be concentrating on the information relevant to the actual expedition.
 * "...continuous observations would, Amundsen hoped, help to explain a number of unresoved problems." What were those problems? I'd rather find those out than the name of someone's house.
 * The source, quoting Amundsen's address to the Geographical Society, refers only to "hitherto unsolved mysteries". I assume he was referring to the geographical and scientific knowledge that would come from his expedition, but he did not go into details. Brianboulton (talk) 17:33, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Linkie for kroner? Present day equivalent?
 * Blurgh. Please don't give us a "present day equivalent". They never are. Yomangani talk 13:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree; these figures always start arguments that go on for ever. Huntford (1985) says (p. 201) that 75,000 kroner was equivalent to £140,000 in 1985, though he quotes no sources. I don't mind putting in an "according to Huntford" footnote if that would help, but please let's not get into theoretical arguments about what present value might be, depending on whose theories one chooses to follow. Brianboulton (talk) 17:33, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "...the Fram party.." but "... Fram voyage..."? Are we italicizing or not? Let's be consistent.
 * First season: "...with eight men, seven sledges, and 42 dogs." that just looks wrong. Doesn't the MOS say to use either all figures or all words in situations like this?
 * "He decided to increase their number for the polar journey, if necessary at the expense of the number of men, as Johansen observed." I'm unclear what the "as Johansen observed" has to do with the first part of the sentence.
 * "...blighted the Belgica expedition's winter in the ice,..." Shouldnt that be "on the ice"?
 * Belgica was stuck in the ice, though I supose the other would do as well. Brianboulton (talk) 17:33, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "...and with no possibility of sledging he ensured that the shore party kept busy." I think "and although there was no possibility of sledging he ensured..." works a bit better.
 * "42,000 biscuits, tins of pemmican and about 220 pounds (100 kg) of chocolate)" You're specific on the number of biscuits and the chocolate (talk about chocolate fiend heaven!) but not on the tins of pemmican?
 * "tormented by thoughts of Scott's motor sledges and the fear that these would carry".. this is the first mention of motor sledges... I think given all the discussion about how Amundsen thought the dogs superior, shouldn't we discuss what the British used instead somewhere before so that the reader understands the context a bit better?
 * Yes, I've worked in an earlier mention of Scott's motor sledges (see "Framheim" section)
 * "...would carry the Englishmen to success and invalidate his own expedition." Two things here... you've always before said "British" not "English" so that's a bit jarring, and two, "invalidate his own expedition." I think that's unfortunate and odd wording. Suggest "... and beat him to the pole." is much better and certainly much more direct and less liable to misunderstanding.
 * Or delete the latter phrase as redundant, which is what I've done. Brianboulton (talk)
 * "...as for more than two weeks harsh conditions..." this is awkward. Suggest "... as harsh conditions for the next two weeks - temperatures near −58 °C (−72 °F) - prevented ..."
 * "and of the dangers of an obsession with beating the English." Again, only referred to it as a "British" expedition.
 * I'm paraphrasing Johansen's diary entry, which specifically refers to "beating the English". Brianboulton (talk) 17:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "...the five men, with four sledges and 52 dogs..." as above, looks odd. Figures or numbers, not mixed.
 * "Of the 45 dogs who had made the ascent (seven had perished during the Barrier stage), only 18 would go forward..." as above, one or the other. And gods, he killed that many dogs??? Blech.
 * "Of the 52 dogs that had started in October, 11 had survived, pulling two sledges." As above, words or figures, not both.
 * Sources: I've added OCLC numbers for the books missing any isbns. The Smith book is categorized as a "juvenile", what makes it reliable?
 * Smith book deleted, citation elsewhere. Brianboulton (talk) 17:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "New Haven (US)" vs. "Sheridan, Oregon"? Consistency.
 * * is listed in the online section, but there is no link to the online version.
 * Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 19:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * We've done the fixes. Except where noted to the contrary, we have followed your recommendations. Thank you for this excellent review. Brianboulton (talk) 17:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Image review The other images are fine. Jappalang (talk) 08:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * File:Robert falcon scott.jpg: This is a misleading image that has been perpetuated by Wikipedia to other sites for a long time; its copyright status is also yet to be verified. Scott does not have a long, thin face.  I have filed a deletion request.  I recommend File:Scott of the Antarctic.jpg or File:Scott of the Antarctic (bw).jpg.
 * File:Southpoleaccount01amunuoft 0044.jpg is a copyright violation in its country of origin. It should never have been stored on Commons (I have recommended speedy deletion there).  I could upload a better copy over here in a few hours.
 * Would File:Gordon Home's Map of Amundsen's South Pole Expedition.jpg suffice? Jappalang (talk) 11:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There's a larger very similar (though bird's eye) fold-out map with Amundsen's copyright in the bottom right corner at the end of the appendices of the original and 2001 paperback of The South Pole. I'm not sure if it is in the 1976 version, but this would make a good PD substitute for Home's map. Yomangani talk 14:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * File:Axel Heiberg Glacier - Antarctica.JPG could be an issue; see its deletion request.
 * I found out the photographer was an active US personnel there at the time of the shot, so it is a public domain Naval photograph. Jappalang (talk) 09:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * File:Amundsen-Fram.jpg: The copyright status tags are insufficent (the image's status in the UK is not addressed). Since the expedition's photographs are taken by the members themselves, who was the last to die and when?
 * I boldly uploaded a copy here and replaced the link. Jappalang (talk) 12:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Regarding the last one, would it be better uploaded straight to Wikipedia (instead of being hosted on Commons)? Apterygial (talk) 08:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would advise so (note that most of the photographs in the article that came from Amundsen's books are stored here). In the UK, if one is going to try for the "I do not know who took it, so let us claim 70 years post publication for anonymous/corporate works", he or she has to show that they have done a certain amount of reasonable research to arrive at that conclusion (in this case, interviews with family members of the expedition or poring through the records).  Unfortunately, I doubt the uploaders of the books' contents to Commons have done that (judging by the US-only tags).  However, if all members of the expedition have died more than 70 years ago, we can simply leave it and add .  If one of them died less than 70 years ago, then he might have been the one that took this photograph...  Jappalang (talk) 08:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yomangani has kindly posted a cropped version of the Scott frontispiece image, which I think is fine. I have posted the revised map per your version above. Please delist the "Fram in sail" image from commons; it should have the same caveats as the other images from Amundsen's book. Of Amundsen's four companions, Bjaaland lived until 1961 and Hansen unril 1956. Wising died in 1936, Hassell in 1928. Many thanks for your help over these images questions which, as always, is gretaly appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 11:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Jørgen Stubberud lived until 1980, so assuming we can't find out who took the pictures, those taken where he may have been present (i.e. not on the polar journey itself) wouldn't be definitively PD until 2050. Yomangani talk 13:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * No problems. I am going to raise a question (not about copyright) on File:Polar transport (Amundsen).jpg.  This image was "reproduced by permission of the Illustrated London News".  If it was taken by Amundsen's group, then he should need to take the periodical's copy (he should be able to obtain the negative and use it).  Is this photograph of Amundsen's expedition?  I suspect it could be of Namsen's or an earlier expedition that uses sled dogs.  Did anyone else not of Amundsen's group come in contact with them and went back to England earlier?  Jappalang (talk) 12:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess there were such people, judging by File:Framheim, Amundsen's camp in the Bay of Whales, Antarctica. Illustrated London News, April 1912.jpg (V1, oppo. p. 206, permission from ILN) ... Jappalang (talk) 13:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Another query: Did Oscar Wising take the photograph File:Hassel in the oil-store.jpg as stated in File:Fuel depot at Framheim - Amundsen Expedition.jpg? Jappalang (talk) 12:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No way of knowing; it shouldn't be on Commons. Yomangani talk 13:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * There are a lot of photos available here which are out of copyright as Anders Beer Wilse died in 1949 and Norwegian copyright isn't as strict as in the UK (50 years after creation or 15 years after the death of the creator, whichever is longer). That URL is a search for Amundsen but there are pictures of other crew members and Fram available too. Yomangani talk 15:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC) (Though I would be careful as there are some photos attributed to Wilse that he clearly didn't take -  for example)  Yomangani talk 15:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I much appreciate these efforts to locate more images. I personally think that 15 is enough, and if there are no longer licence issues with what we have, I don't think we need search further. I won't object if anyone replaces one of the existing images with something that is qualitatively better, but please make it a replacement rather than an addition. I do have the large map to which Yomangani refers, though I don't think it provides significantly better information than the map we have, and there are practical problems in scanning it (at least on my scanner). Finally, Yomangani's apparent specialist knowledge of old Boney M hits is surely to be widely applauded (see edit history of main article). Brianboulton (talk) 16:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It's the only thing I hear. In my head. Singing. Constantly. Make it stop. Make it stop! Make ... it ... stop. Yomangani talk 16:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Just a note to using Wilse's photographs: We would still have to consider US side copyrights. If they were published before 1923, all is fine and dandy (I see some are in The South Pole, so they are okay).  If they were published between 1923 and 2003, US side copyrights might still exist.  Any other of Wilse's works published after 2002 or remaining unpublished would be considered copyrighted in the US till 2020.  Jappalang (talk) 01:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Tidbit: Heh, apparently, Amundsen's publicity photograph (which fronts Volume 2) was taken at Oppegård Bunnefjorden, Norway, not the Antarctic. Jappalang (talk) 01:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, a typical bit of Amundsen deception...(wait, though, the caption merely says "in polar kit", not at the pole). It's still a rather too artificially posed photograph for my liking. And my grandmother had a fur coat just like that. Brianboulton (talk) 12:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Very little to add – merely minor matters of phrasing. The content, proportions, referencing and illustration seem impeccable to me. En passant, it says much for your NPOV that when I finished reading the article I had no idea whether you liked Amundsen or not. That's all I can find to quibble about. I learned much from this article, and look forward to seeing it at FAC. – Tim riley (talk) 09:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comments from Tim riley
 * Background
 * The OED doesn't admit "shipowner" as one word – it requires a hyphen.
 * "Belgica" with no definite article. I note your reply, above, to Ealdgyth on the point, and I bow to your knowledge in this area, but I find "I am the captain of the Pinafore" running through my head. As a matter of contemporary record, The Times refers to "the Belgica" with the article ("Royal Geographical Society. Annual Awards", 6 April 1907, p. 8; "Captain Amundsen's Achievement", 9 March 1912, p. 5; "The Conquest of the South Pole – Captain Amundsen's Success", 9 March 1912, p. 8 etc.) And in our own times, The Independent ("The hero who melted", 15 September 1999) has this: "… in 1897, he had gone south on the Belgica …"
 * Afterthought: on the other hand, it has just struck me, Sub-Lieut Phillips and colleagues always refer to "Troutbridge" with no definite article. Perhaps only landlubbers use the article. Having raised the point I shall now shut up.
 * Initial steps
 * Fulsome? "Of language, style, behaviour, etc.: Offensive to good taste; esp. offending from excess or want of measure or from being 'over-done'. Now chiefly used in reference to gross or excessive flattery, over-demonstrative affection, or the like" (OED)
 * Personnel
 * "All of these bar one" – possibly rather informal phrase for an encylopaedia article?
 * Contemporary reactions
 * "Aside from enthusiastic reports" – unexpected American phrase.
 * Tim, it is always informative and entertaining to have your ex cathedra comments on English usage. I have done the minor fixes. On the question of "the Belgica", the issue with Ealdgyth was one of consistency, not of principle. I imagine it would be OK to use "the" consistently before ship names, if that was one's style; as far as I know there is no rigid rule about this. In this article, by choice, the word "the" is not used, except in the circumstances as explained. Does that clear the matter up? Brianboulton (talk) 00:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Wholly! Having contradicted myself in the space of two lines I'm saying no more. And if (per impossibile) it comes up at FAC you can definitely say the matter has been thoroughly gone into! Tim riley (talk) 18:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. And I'll bet this is the only WP peer review ever that has featured both Boney M and "The Navy Lark". I shall close it shortly, before someone mentions Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh. Brianboulton (talk) 00:34, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I have closed the review. Thanks to all who participated. Brianboulton (talk) 19:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)