Wikipedia:Peer review/Voyage of the Karluk/archive1

Voyage of the Karluk
This peer review discussion has been closed. This article, expanded from a stub with much help from User:Dankarl, tells the story of a tragic and largely forgotten Arctic voyage of nearly a century ago. The story is eerily similar to that of of Shackleton's Endurance voyage in the Antarctic a couple of years later, though without the happy ending – with the Karluk eleven (out of 25) died. Both stories begin with a ship trapped in ice, unable to reach destination. Then, in each case: long drift trapped in pack ice; ship crushed and sunk; crew camps on ice, then struggle to reach remote uninhabited island; leader goes off on a dangerous journey to get help; long delay and frustration before rescue. I hope to take this article to FAC and, if it is promoted, nominate it for TFA on an appropriate anniversary. NB: the inadequate voyage map is being replaced with a more legible version. Comments welcome on all aspects. Thanks, Brianboulton (talk) 12:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments by David Fuchs
 * On first glance, it looks very good; references appear solid, images are all pre-1923 with documentation and sources (although given the sizes of some of the images, did they come from a website? It would be good to have those sources in addition.)
 * They mainly come from Bartlett's book, which is available on Internet Archive. I will add the links to the image descriptions. Brianboulton (talk) 09:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

-- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 02:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The lead sentence is somewhat of a mouthful, trying to cram "voyage of the Karluk" into it. Perhaps you can break it up into two sentences? Per WP:MOSBEGIN, you don't really have to include the title verbatim.
 * I have split the opening sentence, and made other prose tweaks in the first paragraph. Brianboulton (talk) 23:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments by Clevelander96
 * Overall, this is a very finely written and organized entry. In many ways, it is more clearly and forcefully written than the books it uses as its sources. My comments are mostly very minor
 * 1st section: The article reads "Conditions on the ice were hostile" -- it's a minor point, but I would generally steer away from assigning motives to the ice; people can be hostile, but ice conditions are better described as "unfavorable," "poor," or else their condition described (e.g. "the ice was very hummocky and broken up with scores of pressure ridges."
 * Changed to "difficult and dangerous"


 * In the section "In the Ice" -- the statement "It became clear that Stefansson's party would not be able to find their way back to the ship" cites only Niven as a source. I'm not sure that this is a statement that others would agree with -- or, if so, why would there be any controversy over Stefansson's leaving the vessel?  I think this should be rephrased either along the lines of "the ship's drift made it increasingly unlikely that Stefansson would be able to reach the vessel" -- or, if kept in its present form, rephrased as a POV attributed claim, e.g. "Some historians believe that the ship's drift was so rapid and unpredictable that there was no longer any was that Stefansson's party could return to it."
 * I think that all historians and commentators are agreed that after Karluk started moving rapidly westward on 23 September, it became difficult, and then impossible, for Stefansson's party to return. The controversy is over Stefansson's intentions in leaving the ship in the first place, a matter dealt with quite thoroughly in the article using multiple sources. I think it's probably OK to use Niven as a source for the uncontentious statement above, though I will add another, for safety's sake.


 * In general, I think statements such as this sourced only by Niven's book should, if there is any question of POV, be given an additional source. Niven is a popular writer, not a trained historian.
 * Bearing in mind Niven's status as a non-historian, although she is frequently cited (her account is far more detailed - and readable - than most others), these citations generally relate to factual, non-contentious issues, Sometimes, when in doubt,  I have added second citations. I will go through again to see if anything else needs to be reinforced by a second citation.


 * Aside from these (relatively minor) issues, I think this is an enormously well-done entry, and very close to FA quality.Clevelander96 (talk) 18:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for these comments and for your kind words. Brianboulton (talk) 21:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Usual great job, as requested here are some nitpicky suggestions for improvement. I have to say reading this made me appreciate Shackleton and Nansen and what they accomplished even more.
 * This is just awkward, but I am not sure how to fix it - I think part of the problem is the antecedent of "another" is unclear and Kataktovik is clearly not an Inuit family. Perhaps adding "Inuit" after "another": At Cape Smythe the expedition was also joined by an Inuit family of four—Keraluk, his wife Keruk and their two young children Helen and Mugpi—and another, 19-year-old Claude Kataktovik; Keraluk and Kataktovik had been hired as hunters.[39]
 * I have reworded the sentence so it now reads: "At Cape Smyth two more Inuit hunters, Keraluk and Kataktovik, joined the expedition, together with Keraluk's family—wife Keruk and their two young children Helen and Mugpi." Better? Brianboulton (talk) 15:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Much better - would it make sense to call them daughters, since Mugpi's gender is not clear from her name to non-Inuit readers? Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 18:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There are many people mentioned in the article and some of them have similar names (two Andersons and two Jennesses, for example). I think there are places where identifying them by their role in the expedition might be helpful.
 * For example, would it help to add "Zoologist" at the front of this sentence Rudolph Anderson threatened to quit over the leader's claim to the publication rights of all private expedition journals.[11][12]?
 * I've made this "Southern Party leader Rudolph Anderson..." Brianboulton (talk) 15:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Or here everyone is identified but Jenness: He would take with him the two Inuit "Jimmy" and "Jerry", the expedition secretary Burt McConnell, the photographer George Wilkins, and [anthropologist] Jenness.[45]
 * I have done as you suggest. Brianboulton (talk) 15:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Is the historian Jenness related to the expedition member? Also would it help to identify who McKinlay was here (the Scot school teacher): According to expedition historian S.E. Jenness, McKinlay expresses the belief in his unpublished expedition journal, and in later correspondence, that Stefansson's departure amounted to abandoning the ship to its fate.
 * I have reminded the reader of McKinlay's role. I think Stuart E. Jenness is Diamond Jenness's son, but I'm not sure. Brianboulton (talk) 15:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * He is; mentioned in preface to Arctic Odyssey and in the author blurb for Making of an Explorer Dankarl (talk) 16:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The familial relation is probably worth a mention in the article then. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 18:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It was not clear to me how many people were in Anderson's party or who they were.
 * I have named them all now. Brianboulton (talk) 15:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not sure about the note as the only mention of the Anderson party's ultimate fate - should there be some mention of their fate in the article itself? The first time through, I also did not read the note until I got to the end of the article, at which point I was not sure which missing party this was.
 * I have now briefly noted their fate (see end of Shipwreck camp section), and have transferred the details into the Aftermath section. Brianboulton (talk) 15:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I would link nephritis
 * Now linked. Brianboulton (talk) 15:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Not sure if the note on Anderson's party would work in the Aftermath section?
 * As remarked above, it's now in the Aftermath section. Brianboulton (talk) 15:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Lovely map - I would add a black border on the left hand side.
 * Thanks for the kind words. You are my main map mentor, and your recent mention of counting pixels was the information I needed for doing my first-ever map scale. Good catch on the missing east west border. The old one disappeared when I cropped the original too-wide map, and I have now restored it. Finetooth (talk) 18:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Hope this helps. I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for these very helpful comments. Brianboulton (talk) 15:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You are very welcome - glad to help and please let me know when this is at FAC. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 18:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is an excellent article&mdash;well-written, well-illustrated, and a pleasure to read&mdash; about which it's hard to find much to suggest in the way of improvement. I list a few things below, but they are mostly quibbles.

Background
 * "The American sponsors agreed to withdraw, subject to an NGS condition that the Society could reclaim its rights to the expedition if Stefansson failed to depart by June 1913—a narrow deadline which led to the preparations for the journey north being hurried... ". - Perhaps tighten one clause here to "a narrow deadline which led to hurried preparations for the journey north"?

Organisation and personnel
 * "Stefansson had wanted American whaling skipper Christian Theodore Pedersen to captain Karluk, the ship designated for the Northern party." - Uppercase P on Party to match Southern Party elsewhere in the article?

Ships
 * "The ship, a 29-year-old brigantine, was 129 ft (39 m) in length with a beam of 23 ft (7.0 m)." - Spell out primary units (feet)?
 * "Thus anthropologists Henri Beuchat and Diamond Jenness, both designated for the Southern party... " - Big P?

Towards Herschel Island
 * "nor give further details of his plans for the Northern party" - Big P?
 * "Despite their alarm and dissatisfaction, none of the scientists resigned." - Another tiny quibble. Since "their" is plural and "none" is singular, would this be better: "Despite the scientists' alarm and dissatisfaction, none resigned."
 * "On 2 August, about 25 miles from Point Barrow, Karluk thrust her way into the ice... " - Convert to metric?

Drifting west
 * "after Point Barrow itself was sighted on 3 October just five miles (8 km) distant... " - "5 miles" for consistency within the sentence?
 * I understood that this form was OK, but please say if you think I'm wrong. Brianboulton (talk) 01:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Later: I've just looked at WP:MOSNUM and you are undoubtedly right, so I'll alter. Brianboulton (talk) 17:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "the captain ordered supplies and equipment to be transferred on to the ice... " - "onto" rather than "on to"?
 * We BritEng pedants dislike "onto", though either form is correct. Brianboulton (talk) 01:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Sinking
 * "Bartlett went immediately to the engine room and observed water pouring in through a gash 10 ft (3.0 m) long." - Spell out primary unit (feet)?
 * "in pitch darkness and driving snow, to carry additional rations and equipment on to the ice to add to the quantity previously stashed there" - "Onto" rather than "on to"?
 * See comment above - but I've solved the problem by reworking the sentence. Brianboulton (talk) 01:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

March to Wrangel Island
 * "On 28 February all the parties came together in front of the first of a series of high ridges, from 25 to 100 ft (7.6 to 30 m) in height" - Spell out "feet"?
 * "Chafe's group came to within two miles of Herald Island before being stopped by open water." - Metric conversion?
 * "the path forward had been advanced by only three miles, but the worst of the ridges had been overcome" - Metric conversion?

Bartlett's journey
 * '"though still weak from his journey and from an attack of tonsilitis" - I'd link Tonsillitis and spell it with a double ll.

On Wrangel Island
 * "Later in the month the party's spirits improved when Kuraluk caught a 600lb walrus... " - Hyphenate, spell out primary unit, and convert to metric; i.e., 600 lb?

Aftermath
 * "its poor initial organisation, and his handling of the Southern Party which, under Dr Rudolph Anderson" - Delete "Dr"?
 * "Hadley and McConnell wrote up accounts of their experiences for Stefansson, who incorporated them in The Friendly Arctic." - Delete "up"?

Notes and references
 * "while US registration records show Benicia, CA" - I'd either use the standard abbreviation (Calif.) or spell out California rather than using the post office abbreviation (CA).

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. Please let me know when this goes to FAC. Finetooth (talk) 21:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the review (on top of the map!). Except as mentioned above, I have incorporated your suggestions into the text, though Dankarl beat me to a couple. Brianboulton (talk) 01:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment. Noticed it. I'll give it a whirl. One Canada and all that.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Awadewit
 * Images
 * File:Karluk in the Ice Bartlett.PNG, File:Karluk crew making soundings.PNG, File:RodgersHarbourCampWrangel.jpg, - Since these images are also hosted on Commons, they need to have a tag explaining why they are PD in Canada.


 * File:Vilhjalmur Stefansson.jpg - "No known restrictions" is not quite the same thing as PD. Wikipedia has stronger requirements than the LOC - we have to demonstrate why an image is in the PD. Please add the appropriate information to this image, explaining why it is in the PD.


 * File:Karluk party.jpg, File:Karkuk whaler.jpg,File:KarkukDeparture.jpg, File:ShipwreckCamp1914.jpg, File:ArcticIceOffWrangelIsland1914.jpg, File:Karluk survivors.jpg, File:Mugpi (Karluk survivor).jpg - It would be nice to transfer these to Commons. Do you have the requisite information regardings its PD status in Canada so that we can do that?

I thought I'd start with the easy stuff. :) Awadewit (talk) 05:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Since all the photographs were taken before 1 January 1949 they are PD in Canada. I will add the PD-Canada templates. As to File:Vilhjalmur Stefansson.jpg, I raised the question of its use with User:Jappalang; his reply is here. If I add this to the image page, will that suffice? Brianboulton (talk) 11:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You need something establishing the date of the image. Currently, there is nothing that suggests that image was published in or before 1922 (as Jappalang's reasoning requires). Awadewit (talk) 18:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Jappalang might be able to establish the provenance of the photo, but he's on a break. So what I'll do for the moment is replace this with my Stefansson Mark II image. If the earlier proves OK to use, I'll revert to it. Brianboulton (talk) 23:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The date "9/17/15" is written on the negative; see the Library of Congress copy. There is no plausible scenario whereby File:Vilhjalmur Stefansson.jpg would still be under copyright; among other things, it was published without a copyright notice when it was given to the Library of Congress in 1948 (please see When does copyright expire? for details). Eubulides (talk) 08:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I will, however, wait for Awadewit's comment before restoring. Thank you also for finding and adding an excellent image to the Herschel Island section. However, the article is very well provided with images, and adding another into a relatively short section gives an appearance of clutter. As I prefer yours to the "soundings" picture, which is rather less clear, I have left your in place and deleted the other. Brianboulton (talk) 09:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * (Later) Pending further discussion I have for the time being removed this additional image. See article talkpage for reasons etc. Brianboulton (talk) 22:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * (and later still) Your image is restored after a further reshuffle. Brianboulton (talk) 22:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't see the date on the negative. My only concern is what that date is supposed to signify - the LOC itself doesn't date the photo. Awadewit (talk) 18:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sources


 * Do you have access to JSTOR? I looked up the expedition there and I saw some more articles about it. However, you may have already seen these and discarded them. Awadewit (talk) 06:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have direct access to JSTOR, though I can usually arrange to obtain articles if needed. In this case I didn't see anything likely to provide more information than was obtainable from the existing sources. Brianboulton (talk) 11:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Performing due diligence here. Awadewit (talk) 18:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Very little to comment on here - as usual, you tell a gripping narrative. I found a number of missing words as I was reading. You might want to read the article aloud before FAC just to make sure there aren't any more.
 * Prose
 * ended with the ship's sinking and the subsequent loss of nearly half its complement - "ended with the ship sinking" or "ended with the sinking of the ship"? The meaning is slightly different, I think. The second sounds more like the ship was sunk during a battle. What do you think?
 * This first line has been bothering e for a while, mainly because Karluk's sinking is referred to twice in the opening paragraph. So I've changed the line to "The last voyage of HMCS Karluk, flagship of the Canadian Arctic Expedition, ended with the loss of the ship and the subsequent deaths of nearly half its complement." Tell me if you think this is OK.
 * Yes, I think that is good. Awadewit (talk) 18:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * organised a march to the nearest land - The phrase "nearest land" sounds a bit strange - "nearest island"? "nearest land mass"? I'm not sure.
 * What about: "After the sinking, Bartlett organised a march to Wrangel Island, 80 mi away."? Avoids land/island word conflicts and gives more information.
 * Good. Awadewit (talk) 18:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * In the lead, it is unclear how many men died - it is 11 (first paragraph) or is it 11 + 3 (from third paragraph)?
 * Is it not clear? Total eleven men, per first paragraph; second para deals with eight who died on the march to Wrangel Island; third paragraph deals with three who died on the island. To try and make it clearer, I've altered the first paragraph to read: "In all, eleven men died before help could reach them."
 * That clarifies it. Awadewit (talk) 18:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Stefansson had returned to civilisation with plans for another expedition to continue his Arctic studies - This implies that the Inuit aren't a civilization. It would be best to simply say where Stefansson was going.
 * Fair point. Now reads: " Stefansson returned home..."


 * According to expedition historian S.E. Jenness (son of Diamond Jenness),[44] the magnetician William Laird McKinlay expresses the belief in his unpublished expedition journal, and in later correspondence, that Stefansson's departure amounted to abandoning the ship to its fate. - Convoluted sentence
 * Admittedly awkward. I've split the sentence and tweaked it into better shape.


 * It is arguable, Pálsson says, that suspecting that Karluk might be trapped in the ice for a long time - Awkward construction - "that suspecting that"
 * Again tweaked to something better.


 * The crew and staff grew bored and anxious, a mood not helped when, after Point Barrow itself was sighted on 3 October just 5 miles (8 km) distant,[42] the drift turned northwards, away from the land. - I had to reread this sentence, as the clause pile-up was a bit confusing at first.
 * Simplified, see text.


 * The one dissenting element among the party was the group of three scientists—Mackay and Murray, now joined by the anthropologist Henri Beuchat—who played little part in the general life of the camp and were determined to leave it, independently, as soon as possible - "the one dissenting element"' sounds strange - do you even need it?
 * Simplified this, too


 * Anderson and other members of the Southern Party later petitioned the Canadian government to investigate statements made by Stefansson in his 1921 book The Friendly Arctic, which they felt reflected on their honour. - "reflected poorly on their honour"?
 * Yes, I agree.


 * Other
 * It is a little bit awkward to read about the rescue in the "On Wrangel Island" and then backtrack in time to see how it happened in the  "Resuce" section. I wonder if delaying a reference to the rescue would  help this? I would suggest moving the following sentences: Rescue came  suddenly on 7 September, when the group at Rodgers Harbor were awakened  early in the morning by the sound of a ship's whistle, and found the  American vessel King and Winge lying a quarter of a mile offshore. They  were rapidly transferred to the ship, which then picked up the remainder  of the stranded party who were camped along the coast at Cape Waring.  By the afternoon all 14 survivors were aboard, heading for Alaska.
 * Excellent suggestion - much more logical. Now done (with tweakings to hide the scars of transplant surgery).
 * That reads much better to me. Awadewit (talk) 18:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Since so many of the explorers published accounts of the expedition, I think it might be nice to include a section listing these publications. I  know some of them are listed in the bibliography, but a complete list  that is easy to read at a glance might be a nice resource.
 * I'll think about this. Basically there are four published first-hand accounts of the Karluk voyage: Bartlett's, McKinlay's, Hadley's (in Stefansson's book) and Chafe's. There also are unpublished journals. If we construct a list, where would you suggest it should go?
 * I would put a section titled "Published accounts" (or somesuch) after the "Aftermath" section. Awadewit (talk) 18:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't it be cool if, when you were reading the "Sinking" section, Chopin's funeral march automatically played?
 * Well, I did look to see if there was a free soundfile of the Funeral March, but no luck, so readers will have to imagine it!
 * Maybe someday I'll get over my fear of recording myself and upload it. I play it rather nicely, if I do say so myself. :) Awadewit (talk) 18:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not a fan of monetary conversions - has this become a requirement? Money buys such a different things 100 years later that the 2010 figure  is largely irrelevant.
 * I largely agree with you. I've offered one monetary conversion to give readers a rough idea of equivalence, but that's it. I don't think conversions are mandatory.


 * Sometimes "Northern Party" and "Southern Party" are capitalized, sometimes not. This should be standardized.
 * I'll check out the capitalisations


 * WP:PUNC - Check to make sure that incomplete quoted sentences have punctuation outside the quotation marks. I started fixing these and then  decided I didn't want to do them all. :)
 * I'll check the puncs, too.


 * Some of your ISBNs are in the 10-digit format and some in 13. It would be nice if they were all the same.

I hope these comments are helpful! This is a very good article - let me know when you nominate it at FAC. Awadewit (talk) 18:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your—as always—careful attention and thoughtful comments. I will deal with them all, except the last one which is beyond my power. The 13-digit ISBN was introduced from 1 January 2007; books published before then have 10-digit codes. Brianboulton (talk) 19:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but I just use the 10-digit codes for everything, so it is nice and neat. :) Awadewit (talk) 18:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Well-written and enthralling. The sources are great, but rising to the challenge of trying to help improve them, I looked around and found this one: Another source, with lists of sources and two fine contemporary photos: Also, let's remove the Google Books URLs. First, they often don't work (for people who are over quota, or who use IP addresses that Google Books doesn't like). Second, they have privacy problems (they reveal info about the editor who added them). Eubulides (talk) 09:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments by Eubulides
 * Thank you. I have added these to Further Reading. As to the Levere article, I don't have regular JSTOR access so I can't comment on its content, though the title suggests that it does not focus on the Karluk voyage. Overall I am satisfied that the sources employed in the article - a mixture of first-hand accounts, scholarly histories and contemorary media reports – are sufficient to ensure comprehensive treatment. Brianboulton (talk) 11:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I have added these to Further Reading. As to the Levere article, I don't have regular JSTOR access so I can't comment on its content, though the title suggests that it does not focus on the Karluk voyage. Overall I am satisfied that the sources employed in the article - a mixture of first-hand accounts, scholarly histories and contemorary media reports – are sufficient to ensure comprehensive treatment. Brianboulton (talk) 11:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What is WP policy? I have always understood that the Google Book link should be given. Brianboulton (talk) 11:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I know there's no official policy, but my understanding is that Google Books should be avoided in favor of ISBN and/or OCLC. If you have them, you're one click away from the Google Books entry anyway. When this has come up in the past in article reviews, it hasn't been a problem to remove them; see, for example, Talk:Jackie Robinson . Eubulides (talk) 17:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Ditto, ditto. Very well written and gripping. If the prose would survive another going through, I would suggest as follows:
 * Comments by Wehwalt
 * Lede
 * "controversially left the ship". Is the word "controversially" needed?  It doesn't really tell the reader anything and you explain within two paragraphs what the controversy is.  On first reading, I found it confusing, not certain if there was a to-do when they left the ship or later".
 * "announced intention to hunt for caribou." I suggest that this carries a connotation of "this was a cover story".  While it is hard to come up with an absolutely NPOV version while still cluing the reader to the fact that they might not have been telling the truth, I would use "stating that they planned to hunt for caribou" is a bit better.
 * "admiralty commission". Used twice in article.  Are you absolutely sure that "admiralty" is lower case?  Certainly admiralty as a government department is upper case, while admiralty as a field of law is lower.
 * It's lower case in all the sources (Niven, Henighan etc). I'm following them.


 * Background
 * "the remote regions of Northern Canada." Northern Canada! Redundant.  Suggest "remote Arctic Canada".
 * "$45,000" Given the several references in the paragraph to both Canada and the US, it might be wise to say which dollars are being referred to here.  I am, I will admit, uncertain as to whether there was a difference in exchange value at the time.
 * "the Beaufort Sea, then a blank space on the world's maps". Was the sea a blank space, or was its shoreline?
 * The sea was a blank space north of the Canadian coast. The idea was to find out if he held islands, or whether land lay north of it.
 * "although Stefansson maintained that "forethought appeared to have anticipated every eventuality."" It would be interesting to know when he said this.


 * Objectives
 * "In a letter to the Victoria Daily Times," It might be wise, perhaps in the preceding section, to mention that the ship was prepared in Esquimault and note its proximity to Victoria. Might even want to mention that it is on Vancouver Island.  That way you have geographical understanding for the reader and avoid the reader wondering why the ship was prepared in Melbourne.
 * Impossible to incorporate this into the previous section without rewriting it, which I am reluctant to do. I've clarified, hopefully, by calling it the "Canadian" Victoria Daily Times.
 * Just as a comment, I imagine this article is to use Canadian usages. I find from my experience with Dief that they often follow US phrasing, though certainly Brit spelling.  You might want to get a Canadian editor to check it over.  This comment was provoked by the phrase "in the islands".  An American would say "on the islands".  What a Canadian would say is anyone's guess, eh?
 * I've commented on this point at the end.
 * Organisation and personnel
 * "the north Canadian mainland," Odd phrase.  Perhaps "the Canadian Arctic coast"?
 * "northern and southern parties" Why lower case here?
 * "the Commonwealth" Perhaps a little anachronistic?  I would suggest "the Dominions" or "the Empire" if Dominions won't work.
 * "Newfoundland" I would say a better pipe would be to Colony of Newfoundland as the province did not enter Confederation unti 1949.
 * Ships
 * "$10,000" again, which money, if relevant. As for the $4,000, that was spent at Esquimault, so presumably Canadian dollars.
 * $10,000 would be USD as the ship was bought by Pedersen in the US. The sources don't tell us what the $4,000 was, so rather than make assumptions I've removed the specific amount from the text.
 * "petrol-engined" Canadians call the stuff "gasoline".  See here.  I am very sorry, us Yanks have corrupted them.
 * "all would be clarified" I think the vernacular would be more effective here "all would be sorted out".
 * Toward Herschel Island
 * "towards the Alaskan coast." Perhaps just "towards Alaska".  The coast is a given.
 * "Nome, in the Bering Sea." Ah.  Like London, in the Thames River.  One can hope.  Perhaps "Nome, on the Bering Sea"?
 * Dates. According to User:Connormah, who commented on the Dief article and is Canadian, it is more common in Canada to put the month first.  See here.
 * "two young children". It is later made clear that Mugpi is a girl, so why not say "young daughters".  Avoid distracting the reader by wondering what sex Mugpi is.

More later.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments. I have adopted your suggestions except where I have commented. On the question of Canadian usage, etc, the article has been reviewed thoroughly (see above) by a Canadian editor (Finetooth) who did not raise this as an issue. I gather that Canadian readers are generally more relaxed about these things than we Brits are, or you Americans. I have used Canadian/American versions of place names (e.g. Rodgers Harbor) and have changed petrol to gasoline (as Bartlett and Stefansson both have it. But unless there is a howl of wrath from the Canadian contingent I'd rather leave the dates as they are. Brianboulton (talk) 00:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Not a problem, eh? I will be back to you with more, but probably not until tomorrow or Sunday.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm from Oregon, actually, rather than Canada, but I don't have problem with the date formatting, which is internally consistent. Quite some time ago I copyedited Lethbridge, which is FA. The dates in it are d-m-y, just like those in Voyage of the Karluk. Perhaps the Canadian editors choose whichever format suits them personally. I'm entirely relaxed with that. :-). Finetooth (talk) 03:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I do apologise - Oregon isn't even next door! Brianboulton (talk) 09:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see a problem either way. Canada's governments (also Quebec) tend to use dmy more.  Peer review, at least for FA writers, is to clean up problems here rather than there, and I felt obliged to mention it to Brian as Connormah mentioned it to me.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for raising it. The article will probably go to FAC on Sunday, but I'll welcome any comments before then. Brianboulton (talk) 09:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)