Talk:Amundsen's South Pole expedition/Archive 1

Archive 1

Too much focus on Scott's expedition

Too much space is spent here discussing Scott's expedition rather than Amundsen's. Obviously, Scott's achievement is still of greater importance in the English-speaking world... Esn (talk) 10:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It is often talked about as a "race to the south pole" and hence one expedition is important to the other. Scott was a famous person and had loudly publicised his expedition in advance - Amundsen went secretly. In retrospect, both expeditions are important (rating unneccessary and useless) - one successful and one not. Scott was officially in the English speaking world the first one to reach the south pole - in British school books until late sixties. 23:39, 01 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.165.17.95 (talk)

The comment about British school books is absolute nonsense. Scott was a British hero for the way he died, but Amundsen's priority at the pole was always recognised. Dabbler (talk) 03:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

"... beating Robert Falcon Scott and his party by a month." at the end of the first paragraph is certainly out of place without some indication that the two expeditions were in competition. The wisdom of careful study and practical preparation based on applied engineering borne out in the Amundsen expedition's success is not contrasted with Scott's approach. Horses? in the Arctic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlashua (talk • contribs) 14:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

More interesting than how much Amundsen versus how much Scott are the flaws and insinuations in the text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mananda (talk • contribs) 18:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Lead Dog wrongly named

The section on the South Pole journey claimed that 'Etah' was the name of "the lead female dog". This is wrong, and I have deleted the reference. Other references to that name can indeed be found on the Internet, mainly on websites about Samoyed dogs, but it does not appear in any of the primary sources. There are no references whatsoever to such a dog name in Amundsen's own account ('The South Pole'), nor in any other Norwegian sources. Amundsen's team took 18 dogs on the final leg across the high plateau to the South Pole, of which 17 reached the Pole and 11 made it back to Framheim. Of those 18, Amundsen identifies 11 in his own account: 'Uroa', 'Mylius', 'Ring', 'Obersten', 'Majoren', 'Lasse', 'Per', 'Svartflekken', 'Nigger', 'Suggen' and 'Frithjof'. Earlier in the book, he refers to 'Lasse' and 'Fix' as his personal favourites. It is also unlikely that the dog was a samoyed, as Amundsen got all his dogs from Greenland.

Mikewarren 01:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC): Roland Huntsford claims that Helmer Hanssen killed his "best dog Helge" at the south pole after insisting on letting it run beside the sledges for the last few days (it was too tired) so that it would get to the pole. (He was the best dog-driver according to this book and led the entire way). This book agrees with the 17 figure, saying that 16 were left after the aforementioned killing (page 489).

Check http://traverse.npolar.no/historical-traverses/historic-names about Lasse.157.132.92.135 (talk) 05:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Amundsen vs. Scott

To make this into a good and balanced article, it must be recognized that Scott was almost raised to demi-god (and martyr) status by the U.K., and that as a consequence, Amundsen's achievements became less known and even denigrated. This is talked about by Alistair Cook in the TV mini-series based on Huntford's book (The Last Place on Earth/Scott and Amundsen). Cook mentions how in shock he was about how the Scott legend was skewered by the book/series, particularly as a British subject (he eventually became a U.S. citizen I think). I feel the effects are two-fold: First anyone who buys into the Scott legend will resist the elevation of Amundsen somewhat (he did get there first whether it really was a race or not), and secondly, anyone favoring Amundsen, may go overboard in trying to destroy the Scott legend. Let's face it: the phrase "Scott of the Antarctic" is well known, does anyone say "Amundsen of the Antarctic?" Still, Huntford goes out of his way to destroy Scott, and Amundsen made mistakes too. No shovel brought on his expedition? Are you kidding me? It seems clear that Scott made more mistakes, and died on the way back (adding to the legend). If Scott had returned to England, having come in second, would the neutrality of this article even matter, or would everyone know the name of Amundsen? I suggest that everybody work to make this a fair article discussing Amundsen's expedition, with some mention of Scott. If indeed the Scott vs. Amundsen controversy cannot be resolved here, then a separate article may be necessary. The story of these two men is bound together. Jimaginator (talk) 17:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The reason why nobody says "Amundsen of the Antarctic" is that the Antarctic was merely one of his spheres of achievement. He also discovered the North-west Passage, and made the first airship flight over the North Pole. Scott's fame, by contrast, is entirely bound up with his two Antarctic expeditions - he didn't go anywhere else. As to the supposed Scott v Amundsen controversy, this arose mainly from post-expedition analysis than from any dispute between the two expeditions at the time. Scott was undoubtedly miffed by the presence of an unwelcome rival, but didn't dispute Amundsen's right to be there. Amundsen behaved honourably when visited at Framheim by Scott's abortive Eastern party. This expedition article should be an objective account of Amundsen's South Pole venture, the interactions with Scott being discussed in a proper context—the "controversy" should rightly be the subject of a separate article. Amundsen's South Pole expedition is an essential component in the future featured topic Heroic Age of Antarctic Exploration, and needs to be brought to featured standard. I will be more than ready to work on the article when a few current projects are resolved, perhaps by end-January next. I can be contacted on my talk page about this. Brianboulton (talk) 14:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Added category

Addded Category:Memory of the World Register Kingvald (talk) 11:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Crew of the Expedition

Can someone please add the crew of the expedition list below? I do not know how to format it correctly. Thank you. Roald Amundsen Thorvald Nilsen Olav Bjaaland Helmer Hanssen Sverre Hassel Oscar Wisting Andreas Beck Hjalmar Fredrik Gjertsen Ludvig Hansen Fredrik Hjalmar Johansen Henrik Adolf Lindstrøm Jacob Nødtvedt Karenius Olsen Halvardus Kristensen Kristian Presterud Martin Rønne Jørgen Stubberud Knut Sundbeck Alexandr Kutschin

Jimaginator (talk) 16:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

when did Framheim disapear?

in the german article about Framheim it disapears in the year 1928, here in the article it happens in 2000 - this difference in time is very big. Can somebody verify the one or the other date with sources? -- Hartmann Schedel (talk) 16:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

start on Sep, 18 and reach depot on Sep.15?

in this section it says: "Amundsen made a false start to the Pole on September 18, 1911..."; than "On September 12, it was decided to reach the depot at 80°, deposit..." and than: "The depot was reached on September 15 from..." - erm... what? -- Hartmann Schedel (talk) 16:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

According to Chater's translation of Amundsen's The South Pole, the false start was on the 8th: "September 8 arrived. We turned out as usual, had breakfast, and were then on the move." So it's just a typo. I fixed it in the article. Gdr 11:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

thank you for fix that problem -- Hartmann Schedel ^Prost 13:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Fotos?

I'm not sure how to interpret this sentence:

Amundsen did no surveying on his route south and is known to have taken only two photographs

I'm currently reading Amundsens "Conquest of the pole", and there is a bunch of photographs in there, apparently take on the pole dash. He also mentions several times that they stopped en route to take pictures.

Where does the "two photographs" notion come from...? -- Syzygy (talk) 08:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Having read that sentence twice, I suppose the "route south" refers to the route from Norway to Antarctica. But it is really unclear... Fomalhaut76 (talk) 14:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Centenary

15 December 2011 sees the 100th anniversary of Amundsen's conquest of the South Pole. It would be highly appropriate if this expedition article could grace WP's main page on that date. This will mean considerable work on the article, to bring it to Featured Article standard; Apterygial and I have begun this work, which will extend over the next few weeks. The article may look a little odd in places for a while, as different parts are developed, but all should come together in the end. If you are interested in this project, and have relevant ideas, please let us know here. Brianboulton (talk) 20:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thumbs up!

Hi, One Ton Depot and Brian Boulton, just to say: I'm following your edits with keen interest, and it looks like this will become an excellent article, not the least due to your great work. Thanks for the skills and effort you put into this, keep up the good work! -- Syzygy (talk) 07:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Love your nick; a word I believe I first used in Hangman (game). Anyway, I'm just the technician; the article is Brian's work, as well as that of Apterygial. One Ton Depot (talk) 09:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Any use?

Is this image I put on WikiCommons any use? Hel-hama (talk) 19:38, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Indeed: I have the map, but have been waiting for the prose expansion to finish before positioning it in the article. Thanks anyway for uploading it, which saves me the bother. Brianboulton (talk) 10:14, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Southpoleaccount01amunuoft 0044.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Southpoleaccount01amunuoft 0044.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 07:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Axel Heiberg Glacier - Antarctica.JPG Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Axel Heiberg Glacier - Antarctica.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 07:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Robert falcon scott.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Robert falcon scott.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Several comments

• The Belgica article states that "By 22 July, command of the ship was taken by Amundsen and Cook, as de Gerlache and Lecointe were too ill." Is that in one of the sources used here and is it worth mentioning here? Also, the article says he was "mate". Is this different from the earlier linked term "second mate"?

• I've linked the term "mate". There is nothing in the accounts of the Belgica expedition I've read to indicate that circumstances arose whereby Cook and Amundsen "took command" of the ship. I suspect it is Wikipedia waffle, but the point is too marginal to be of concern in this article. Brianboulton (talk) 22:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks. I had thought it might be a suitable "leadership" moment, but it seems not. Carcharoth (talk) 05:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• British Empire is first linked in the 'Aftermath' section, but is mentioned first in the 'Initial steps' section.

• Shifted link above. Apterygial (talk) 09:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• This sentence is clunky: "Although he had little previous experience of sledge dogs, Wisting developed, Amundsen wrote, "a way of his own" with them, and became a useful amateur veterinarian."

• Changed to "Although he had little previous experience of sledge dogs, Amundsen wrote that Wisting developed "a way of his own" with them, and became a useful amateur veterinarian." This avoids a couple of the commas. Apterygial (talk) 09:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• I might tweak it further (swapping the first 'he' with the later 'Wisting'), but that is much better, thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 05:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• In the 'Personnel' section, rather than linking to Telemark and Sondre Norheim (which is getting a bit far off track for this article), why not link to Telemark skiing? Though that article may not be up to scratch, it would be nice to either link to or be more explicit about the skiing technique used if covered by the sources you have. Looking through the rest of the article, I noticed mention of the ski boots, and mastery of skiing, but not much else.

• I don't see the need for this myself, but I have no objection if someone else wishes to make these changes

• I agree that there is probably no need to mention Telemark skiing, but then why bother mentioning Sondre Norheim? When it comes down to marginal stuff, I don't see the logic in some marginal stuff being mentioned and other marginal stuff not being mentioned. One writer would chose to mention some marginal stuff and another writer would chose to mention other marginal stuff. I don't think there is any real justification in Wikipedia policy and guidelines either way. It comes down to personal preference, IMO, and so I'll defer to what you say (as you are more engaged with the article), while still noting that it is not strictly essential for the article either way. Carcharoth (talk) 05:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• Roland Huntford is linked twice.

• Fixed. Apterygial (talk) 09:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• Repetition here: "...the disease could be countered by eating fresh meat. To counter the danger..."

• "To neutralise the danger".

Quite a number of ways this could be phrased, but thanks for making that change to avoid the repetition. Carcharoth (talk) 05:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• It is not clear when Scott departed on his expedition and where he was at various times during the initial timeline of this expedition. The following don't make it much clearer: "Before leaving Funchal on 9 September Amundsen sent a cable to Scott" (where was Scott, and where was the cable sent?); "I have sent full details of Amundsen's underhand conduct to Scott" (again, where is Scott at this point?); If I was Scott I would not let them land (implies Scott has already left and is there?); "Early on the morning of 3 February, Scott's expedition ship Terra Nova arrived unexpectedly in the Bay of Whales. After landing Scott's main party in McMurdo Sound early in January" (this gives more hints, but is still not entirely clear). It was at this point, while looking for a link from this article to Terra Nova Expedition, that I realised there wasn't such a link. Currently, you have to go through a Scott link, the Terra Nova link, the main article link in the 'comparison section', or the polar exploration template at the bottom of the article (which is collapsed). Surely a link direct to the Terra Nova Expedition could be used somewhere in the main text of this article? Anyway, on looking there, I see that "Waiting for Scott in Melbourne was a telegram from Amundsen, informing Scott that the Norwegian was "proceeding south"" and that the Terra Nova arrived on "4 January 1911" That sort of extra information in that article is dealt with better than in this article. It really would help here if a bit more was said about Scott's expedition before they appear suddenly in the bay of Whales.
• It would definitely be worth doing a side-by-side reading of this article and the Terra Nova Expedition article (which I know at least one of the current editors of this article worked on). Just to ensure consistency, and to see where things can be improved if one article covers something in a better way than the other one. And also because many readers will read both articles, possibly at around the same time. For example, this article gives '3 February' as the date the Terra Nova encountered Fram, while the other article gives no date for that encounter. There is also (rightly) more in the other article on Scott's reactions and thoughts, whereas this article (again, rightly) concentrates more on Amundsen and his expedition, but these slight differences again reinforce the need to link to the other article. More differences emerge when you compare the 'Historical perspective' section here, with the 'Aftermath' section over there, and also the 'See also' section over there. They are both excellent articles (and rightly featured), but you can tell just from reading them that this one was written later than the other one, which implies that a buffing up of the 'Terra Nova Expedition' article (promoted to FA over three years ago) may be needed.

• On the above two points, my conom may choose to differ but this is my position. The focus of this article is Amundsen's expedition. Unlike Huntford's 1979 book it is not a comparative account of the two expeditions. The information currently given concerning Scott includes the location of his base, the fact that it was 60 nautical miles further from the pole than the Bay of Whales, the approximate date of his arrival there, the context of Campbell's sub-expedition, the route Scott took to the pole (also evident from the map), the date he arrived at the pole and the date of his death. Plus the post-mortem stuff. There is rather more information about Scott's expedition in this article than there is about Amundsen's in the Terra Nova article. I will add a few more clarifying bits and pieces, and a direct link to the Terra Nova article is a good idea, but beyond that, I don't see the need for any significant change. Brianboulton (talk) 22:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• My point is not that more mention should be made of Scott in this article (I quite agree more mention would not be good), but that when Scott is mentioned, that the reader is left in no doubt as to what the circumstances are (e.g. That Scott had already departed on his voyage when the telegram was sent, and that it took a long time for news of the fate of Scott's polar party to be confirmed and for that news to reach the outside world). The mention of reading the two articles side-by-side was making the point that this article has an 'aftermath' bit as a subsection of 'historical perspective, whereas the Terra Nova Expedition article doesn't. It's a very difficult balancing act to get the three articles (the two expedition articles and the comparison article) meshing together, but my hope was that by mentioning it, that some consideration would be given to that (this is really the sort of thing that 'featured topics' should tackle, but doesn't, probably for good reason as it is often not easy to get the balance right in a single article, let alone over a group of them). Carcharoth (talk) 05:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• The term "Barrier" is used consistently throughout the article. This is a piped link to Ross Ice Shelf at its first appearance (Great Ice Barrier), but a sentence or two explaining that this thing constantly referred to (at the time) as "the Barrier" is what we now call an ice shelf (did they call it that?) and its massive size (about the size of France) might help. Also, explicitly giving it its current name at least once is better, IMO, than hiding the current name behind a piped link.
• Something that might also help is a note pulling together the various bits (currently a bit spread out in the article) about the route and its terrain, especially the change from sea level to an elevation of 2,835 metres at the South Pole, and the total distance involved (the total distance travelled of 3440 km is given at the end, but not before then (why wait until near the end of the article to say this?), and the distance from Amundsen's base to the pole is given as 1285 km in the Scott-Amundsen comparison article - is that an 'as the crow flies' distance?). The Ross Ice Shelf portion of the journey was (as far as I'm aware) near sea level (how thick was the Ross Ice Shelf then?), while the big change comes when you reach land and the Transantarctic mountains and head up onto the higher elevations of the plateau. Details of the ascent is covered in the "Barrier and mountains" section, but the fact that the route across the plateau was at about the same elevation at the mountains is not mentioned, when (IMO) this should be.
• A brief note on the depot-laying strategy might help, explaining that as it was not possible to take supplies for the entire journey, successive journeys would extend the range by laying depots for use by later journeys on both the outwards and return legs. Those not familiar with Antarctic exploration might not fully understand this strategy without such a note. The reason I think this is needed is that a whole paragraph is spent earlier in the article explaining the Arctic 'drift strategy', but nothing specific is said explain the corresponding Antarctic strategy. Also, you say "Amundsen shared Nansen's belief that skis and sledge dogs provided by far the most efficient method of Arctic transport", but you don't later say that Amundsen also applied this to the Antarctic. You could also take more time to explain why the expedition extended over many months to nearly two years (9 August 1910 departure from Norway and reaching Hobart on 7 March 1912), because it had to be planned around the polar night/winter and the outward and return sea voyages.
• Antarctic Plateau is only linked in the image caption - could be linked in the article at the point where it is first mentioned and is most relevant.

• Done. Apterygial (talk) 09:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• "Stubberud was persuaded to join them" - sounds wrong. Amundsen ordered(?) Johansen and Prestrud, but persuaded Stubberud?

• Indeed. Prestrud was injured, Johansen was insubordinate; neither could be taken on the polar party. Stubberud had done nothing wrong, and Amundsen's leadership style avoided direct orders as much as possible. Apterygial (talk) 09:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• Ah. That makes it clearer. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 05:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• The elevations climbed while ascending the glacier do give an indication that they are climbing upwards, but rather than saying they climbed 5,000 feet in one day (or as well as saying that), why not say they reached an elevation of 10,600 feet when they made it onto the plateau from the glacier? The map gives absolute elevations reached relative to sea level, and that gives me a clearer idea of the terrain than the current wording of the article does.

• Added that there, but I'm not too happy with its placement and will consider moving it elsewhere. Apterygial (talk)

• The map image shows 5 depots on the Barrier. Only three are described in the text. Is the map wrong? There is a depot mentioned in the text laid at the summit of glacier, which is not marked on map. The map also shows a depot made on 29 November (near the Devil's Glacier up on the plateau) and a "last depot" on around 9 December further on - neither are mentioned in the article. Again, is the image wrong? Some people (like me) will look at the image and try and follow it as they read the article, so any inconsistencies need to be cleared up.

• The 3 depots described in the text were laid during the depot journeys February/March 1911. The others were laid by the polar party on their way to the pole. I don't think it's necessary to describe every depot in the text, and a slight extension to the image caption should clear up any confusion. Brianboulton (talk) 22:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• Sure. Most of my points, btw, can be addressed by very minor additions. The conditions on the polar plateau (the cold and incessant wind) can be combined with a mention of the elevation. And I'd personally give some indication of the variability of the weather, and of the conditions encountered. The depot question needs only a minor change to make clear that there were other depots, and possibly a 'further reading' link that makes clear that those seeking a blow-by-blow account of the expedition should read Amundsen's accounts (among others) - I've been reading some of it and it is excellent stuff (runaway dogs eating food from the depots, gorgeous scenery, some dry humour, detailed mentions of the dogs killed and eaten), the sort of thing I think it is worth flagging up for readers, though the external links pretty much do that already (hopefully readers will follow those links without needing prompting). Carcharoth (talk) 05:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• Several features that are marked on the map (or mentioned as named by Amundsen's expedition) are not mentioned or not linked in the account given here. These include: the Queen Maud Mountains, Mount Hanssen, the Prince Olav Mountains, and Devils Glacier. All a bit stubby, but worth mentioning and linking IMO.

• Well, I'll have a look at further possible linking. Perhaps a sentence could be added mentioning other landmarks, especially those named after the expedition's sponsors. Brianboulton (talk) 22:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• Possibly a list of features named by them might be better as a subarticle (someone did start Antarctic features named after Norwegian royals, so the idea isn't completely crazy). There was a massive Nilson mountain that we don't seem to have an article on (named after the second-in-command, away sailing with the Fram), but also Mount Wisting, Mount Hassel, Mount Bjaaland, Mount Fridtjof Nansen, Mount Don Pedro Christophersen, Mount Wilhelm Christophersen, Mount Engelstad, Liv Glacier, Nilsen Plateau (that is what I was looking for earlier, what they called a very large mountain, so large it seems to now be called a plateau). Other features were named by others in tribute to Amundsen and his expedition, but that is a different matter to the features named by Amundsen and his party at the time. As you say, the features named after the expedition sponsors, and I'd also mention those named for the expedition members. Not necessarily an exhaustive list (unless the one's I've mentioned are all there were), but some mention of this, as they were, after all, the first people there. Carcharoth (talk) 05:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• The bit at the pole is not 100% clear: "After taking several sextant readings at different times of day, Bjaaland, Wisting and Hassel skied out in different directions to "box" the Pole"." It sounds interesting, but there wasn't much on it in this article. I had to go and read the Polheim article to get more of an idea of what this involved. Maybe more could be said here in this article?
• "21 of his surviving dogs" - as you only recently said "11 had survived", might be worth making clear that some of these dogs were ones that didn't journey to the Pole. Maybe that is too obvious, but it threw me momentarily. Presumably the other surviving ones were from the Eastern expedition of Prestrud, Stubberud and Johansen? Or maybe some had been left with Lindstrøm?
• The 'Other expedition achievements' sections feel a bit tacked on, out of some obligation to say something about them but not very much. They also jar chronologically. I prefer the way the Amundsen book treats these, as separate chapters and science appendices. The oceanographic appendix is here (I haven't checked the other online copies in the external links, but those presumably have the appendices as well). The reason I went off and found that was because when I read the sentence in the lead about the Fram's oceanographic voyage, I was looking forward to reading about that in the main body of the article, and felt rather disappointed that the main body only had the following to say: "Fram departed in June for an oceanographic cruise between South America and Africa, which occupied the next three months." There are also the geological, meteorological and astronomical observations, which are either mentioned briefly or not at all. If this part of things is not going to be covered at all, or only very briefly, it could maybe be handled in a further reading section that directs people to those parts of Amundsen's book (which is worth reading in full in addition to this article, as it contains much more than is provided here - the account of the first attempt to get the dogs pulling sledges again after the sea voyage was hilarious).

• I disagree with your view about the location of the "Other expedition achievements " section. Since these things were happening concurrently with Amundsen's march to the pole, you cannot avoid some break in the strict chronology, wherever you locate the section. The question of whether more should be added about the Fram cruise is a matter of judgement; all Antarctic expeditions did work of this kind. In the overall scheme of things it was not a particularly notable part of this expedition. Brianboulton (talk) 22:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• I'm aware that scientific work of this sort was done on such expeditions (a very long tradition, stretching back to Cook and continuing through Darwin and others, and the account of the Fram's oceanographic cruise specifically namechecks earlier voyages such as the Challenger expedition), but I'm still not convinced that the mention here being so cursory is warranted (though they did leave the proposed expedition meteorologist behind) - would an additional sentence or two really unbalance things that much? Currently there is no mention at all of the meteorological or astronomical work. The reason I raised it was that I was surprised to see fairly extensive appendices in Amundsen's account, but not so much here. I will likely add more on the Fram oceanographic cruise, but to the Fram article, rather than here. For the other stuff, there is not really anywhere else to put it. Certainly the extensive meteorological data was published at the time and a scanned copy of that is online; I'll post a link related to that later if I can re-find it. But what is really needed is coverage of the scientific aspects in current sources, and if, as you say, there is not much on that, then fair enough. Carcharoth (talk) 05:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• The reason for the delay in the reporting of the fate of Scott's expedition could be given. The Antarctic winter and the discovery not being made until 12 November 1912 and the Terra Nova not returning until 18 January 1913. You could even interleave into the existing text the approximate date of Scott's death, the discovery of their bodies, and the date when news reached the outside world. All a far cry from the instant communication of today's world.
• The link to manhauling was interesting, but I found myself wondering why it hadn't been mentioned and linked much earlier, as a contrast to the dog team approach used by Amundsen's expedition.
• "The outbreak of the First World War in 1914 delayed the start of Amundsen's northern polar drift—to which the South Pole expedition had been intended as a preliminary—until July 1918." This isn't inaccurate, but it omits entirely the fact that he had planned to use the Fram, and there had been plans to go through the Panama Canal, but there were problems (dry rot). This is covered here (Fram Museum).

• Not relevant to Amundsen's South Pole expedition. Brianboulton (talk) 22:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• From the notes: "Amundsen omits Wisting from the shore party". This sounds like Amundsen made a decision to omit Wisting from the shore party, when what I think you mean is that Amundsen left his name out when writing the list in his book about the expedition. The book mentions Wisting later on, so it seems to be just an authorial error by Amundsen. It seems a bit unnecessary to point this out.

That's my notes finished. I'd started these notes (initially a sentence or two) when I saw the article at peer review, but failed to finish reading the article before it went to FAC. The FAC then closed before I had time to add something, which is why I've left the comments here. Not had time to check talk page archives or fully read the comments others left, so apologies if the above repeats anything. It did take several evenings to finish going through the article, so I hope some of the above is of use. Carcharoth (talk) 08:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC) Updated: 00:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the time you spent on this. We will go through your points, making appropriate fixes and comments where necessary, though this may take a little while. Brianboulton (talk) 11:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, I have responded to some points, Apterygial has to others. I will take the actions indicated, as and when I can over the next several days. Where I haven't replied I haven't looked properly yet, but these seem fairly minor points which it should be relatively easy to fix. I don't have much time available at the moment, so please be patient if there are delays in getting everything done.

That's OK. I don't have much time either. Busy most of this weekend. Replied in parts above to you both (and many thanks for responding here - I will do my best not to let this drag on, as most of the points are minor, as you say, though I do think many can be addressed with small tweaks - I'm not suggesting major changes, even if it might sound like it, just rounding out that gives slightly more context). Carcharoth (talk) 05:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I expect to get back to this in about 4 or 5 days (around 25 Nov) Brianboulton (talk) 12:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the changes made. I noticed you've nominated this to appear as TFA (today's featured article) on 14 December (you also mentioned this at the FAC). Would it be best to get the remaining points above addressed before then, or are the changes made so far all that you think need doing? One point I noticed, when reading the discussion here is that someone pointed out the same thing I did above (the suggestion to link the Terra Nova Expedition article rather than just Scott or his ship). You made that change here, but this article itself still lacks a direct link to the expedition article. I would add it myself, but I'm not sure if you'd want the same change made to the lead here as you made to the blurb (sometimes blurbs should be different, and a link to the expedition might work better elsewhere in the article itself). I also noticed the article now has two links to the Terra Nova ship article - the second link got added with this edit. Seeing as the next link to Terra Nova is the very next section (Framheim), I'll remove the link there. That's an easy call to make. On whether to change the linking in the lead the same way as you changed the blurb, I'll leave up to you. Carcharoth (talk) 12:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC) Update: Someone else added the link. I'm not entirely convinced that that works, so may try something else. Carcharoth (talk) 23:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Summary

For ease of reference, the changes made since the last substantial edits on 24 November are here. Providing this link because the article is likely to be featured on the main page soon, and it will be best to ensure this is all OK and then archive the talk page a bit.

I've re-read what I wrote above, and large parts of what I said seem to have been addressed (thanks again) and the rest isn't (on reflection) that important, with one exception. I still feel that some mention of the total distance travelled there and back should be mentioned earlier and not left right until the end. Also something along the lines of not knowing the terrain they would face (it was in large parts a journey into the unknown), but that they did know something of what to expect (needing to ascend mountains to reach this relatively high-elevation plateau discovered by Shackleton). What I'm not clear on is whether they expected the plateau to extend all the way to the pole? Did the earlier reports from Shackleton indicate that this was likely? I presume that Shackleton's expedition had clear days where they could report that the polar plateau was large and flat even from the furthest point south they reached, but how much of Amundsen's expedition was a journey into the unknown and how much could they make educated guesses about what to expect, and how much was based on reports from previous expeditions? I know they chose a different route, but could they assume that the journeys across the Barrier and the Plateau would be similar to that done by Shackleton (and Scott), with the only real problem likely to be finding a way up through the mountains? Or were they half-expecting to encounter other problems? Carcharoth (talk) 01:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Stable version

Hi all, there is a new stable template that I have placed on this talk page. The purpose of this template, as explained in the documentation and in a short discussion at the village pump, is to help against article rot (the deterioration of quality that can occur in articles), and to keep a link to a stable version, which will be reliable, and not so prone to those errors, vandalism, and erroneous information that can crop up at any moment. It has no effect on the actual article, and can be upgraded/changed at any time - ideally to reflect a newer, improved stable version. This being said, if you are against using it on this talk page (some have found it intrusive), feel free to discuss or remove it - I believe that it will benefit some articles more than others, and I accept that not all will see a need for it on each article. Falconus^{p t c} 22:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)