Talk:Franklin's lost expedition/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

I started this article today by splitting it out from John Franklin, a biography. I replaced the transferred material on the John Franklin page with a summary of several paragraphs preceded by a "Main page" link to Franklin's Northwest Passage expedition of 1845. The next step will be for interested writers and editors to clean up the transferred material, some of which was relevant to the Franklin biography but may not be relevant to the 1845 expedition article, to re-organize the remaining material, and to add new material. Finetooth (talk) 00:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Franklin

Ok, we'll start on the expedition article first :) The article already has a solid start, but there'll be more for us to do! Lazulilasher (talk) 05:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Huh, on another note, I just noticed that there exists a wikiproject for antarctica but not for the arctic....does this article fall under wikiproject geography? Lazulilasher (talk) 05:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Good question. I haven't looked into this. On other articles I've started, other editors have come along in some cases and "adopted" the article by adding it to an ongoing project. We wouldn't need to wait, though, if we can find a project or projects on our own. On an unrelated topic, I see that the article in its current form has many lists attached to its bottom. I have in mind to incorporate as much of this material as possible into the main text, though this is not going to be easy in some cases. Some of the trivia will be hard to incorporate, yet I don't want to offend the writers and editors who took the trouble of adding it. For example, I'm not sure what to do with the lists of novels, short stories, songs, poems, and plays about the Franklin Expedition, although I think the two lists can be fairly easily compressed into one. I'll give that a try later today. Finetooth (talk) 18:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, my personal feeling is that lists should be condensed into text, so I think that is a good idea overall. Especially if we can find some background. Lazulilasher (talk) 19:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree the lists should be made into narrative text. I originally added the section on literary contexts, so why don't I work on converting that section? Clevelander96 (talk) 20:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

<outdent>Oops! Sorry, I didn't see your note earlier. I've been beavering away on the article and not paying attention to much else. Feel free to amend my changes. Finetooth (talk) 02:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete Timeline?

I recommend deleting the Timeline section since the main text already includes this information. We could use the space for other things, methinks. Finetooth (talk) 04:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Yacht or steam-schooner?

The existing text calls Fox a yacht, which struck me as odd on a first reading. Cookman calls Fox a "steam-schooner". The editor of the Schwatka book calls it a "steam schooner". I'm no expert on ships. Which is correct? Or would a different term be more accurate? Finetooth (talk) 18:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The Fox is almost universally referred to in 19th-century sources as a "yacht." But "yacht" is really a type of ownership rather than a type of boat; it just means it was privately owned. The rigging and masts of the Fox seem consistent with WP's entry on "schooner," and she did have an auxiliary steam engine, so "steam schooner" is accurate also, just a different way of characterizing it. By the way, Cookman's book is not an ideal authority -- it is full of (mostly minor) factual errors, due to the fact that he relied on paid researchers to do much of his work, and is not a professional historian. I would go with Cyriax or Ann Savours, both of whom were/are authorities in Naval history. Clevelander96 (talk) 20:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks much for this info, especially the advice about Cyriax and Savours. As you may have guessed already, I know a fair bit about editing and the Wikipedia Manual of Style, but my knowledge of the Franklin Expedition is somewhere between meagre and thin. Finetooth (talk) 20:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

I finished enough of the initial Manual of Style cleanup this morning, that I thought it was OK to remove the unsightly cleanup tag. A lot remains to be done. Several sections are well-sourced, while others have no sources or almost none. Some of the citations are still incomplete, and several bibliographic items are skeletal. It might be more sensible to delete some of these partial listings than to track down the ISBNs and whatnot since they don't seem to be cited in the text and since it probably doesn't make sense to attempt a complete bibliography for an encyclopedia article. We need more photos, charts, maps. I want to add a map showing the route of the journey from Greenland to King William Island and, then, to near the Back River. I'd love to include a map of the route of Schwatka, which as I recall was more-or-less followed by Beattie. (Clevelander96 would know whether this is true or not.) Also, should we add other important works to the Bibliography? Clevelander96 would know what these are, and I don't. The lead that I wrote to start things off is not meant to be final; we can repair it when the rest of the main text is more settled. This is not a complete list of what needs to be done, but I'd better stop for the nonce. Finetooth (talk) 18:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Aftermath

I don't know what to do about this section. Someone else, concerned about the lack of verifiable sources, has added a "citation needed" tag, but I don't what the source or sources might be. Should I simply delete the unsourced material? Finetooth (talk) 05:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's work to cite what we have, before we delete. I will also add some images and maps shortly! Clevelander96 (talk) 05:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

OK. I'll turn my attention to other things and refrain from deleting. When I turned on my computer this morning, the image of the Franklin relics leaped up, and a big smile appeared on my face. It is wonderful, and the page is beginning to look terrific. I'm eager to set to work, but I have other obligations today that will keep me from doing anything on Franklin until this evening or perhaps until tomorrow. Thank you so much for the illustration. Finetooth (talk) 18:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Glad you like the image! I always like to have something dramatic pop up when a page is first viewed, before anyone scrolls down. I'll keep tinkering away. Clevelander96 (talk) 18:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Interruption

I haven't disappeared. When I got on-line again yesterday, I discovered that an article I had submitted for Good Article review had been reviewed and put on hold. I must try to fix its flaws, including one that requires more research, during the next seven days (actually five now since yesterday is gone and today is almost gone). I had intended to give the Franklin Expedition first priority this week, but it has now been bumped to second. I'll come back to work here as soon as I can. Meanwhile, my copy of the Savours' book should arrive soon, but the Cyriax book is harder to find. The nearest library copy is hundreds of miles away. Lazulilasher, do you happen to have Cyriax? Finetooth (talk) 03:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Finetooth, if you need any cites, I have every book in the bibliography (including Cyriax), I'd be happy to check anything. Clevelander96 (talk) 04:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks much. Finetooth (talk) 06:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Return

My other article passed GA this morning, and I'm turning my attention once again to the Franklin Expedition. The Savours book has arrived, and it is very good. I've also obtained a library copy of Martin Sandler's Resolute, which I am enjoying. I'm trying to get enough Franklin material in my noggin to get a grasp of the larger picture. I may spend the next day or so mostly reading and taking notes. I'm also trying to find a base map of Nunavut in the Commons that I could re-work to show the route of Terror and Erebus from Disko Island to King William Island. Do you know of maps in the public domain that could be used? The CIA public domain map of the Canadian Arctic is too small-scale to be helpful here unless another larger one exists somewhere that we can download. Finetooth (talk) 18:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, grats on your other article! Savours is well-researched and a solid source; Sandler is also good but be sure you don't have the first printing, which was rife with minor errors (see the last couple of paragraphs of the review at the Arctic Book Review [1].

Good maps are a problem. You might try this one, which is in the public domain; it's from the National Library of Canada's site, which is good generally in clearly identifying material out of copyright. Or you could try modifying the NASA image which the WP's entry uses.

Thanks. I had not found either of these maps on my own. The NASA one looks big enough to work with. I'll have to meddle with it to see what I can do. Finetooth (talk) 04:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks also for the tip about the Sandler printing. I do indeed have the first printing, as it turns out. Perhaps I can find a later printing. Finetooth (talk) 04:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Unexplored distance

I'm finding in the sources several ways to describe the amount of land or the distance left unexplored when Franklin set out in 1845. I have added Savours' quadrilateral area, which she gets from Cyriax. An earlier editor had included this sentence: "Exploration of the Arctic coastal mainland since Franklin's last Arctic expedition had left less than 500 kilometres (311 mi) of unexplored Arctic coastline." I think that needs a citation since I find myself wondering how we know that's correct. James Clark Ross and his men get as far as King William Island on foot from the east in 1830; George Back gets to Chantrey Inlet going overland from the south in 1834, and Simpson and Dease reach Chantrey Inlet from the west in 1839. Mysteries remained about Boothia Felix, but I'm wondering just what is being included in that 500 kilometres. Even if it's correct, I think we should explain with something like "as measured from A to B along the edges of C, D, and E" or whatever might be the case. Or else delete it. Finetooth (talk) 23:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll check this fact -- I suspect it derives from Berton or some other more general treatment -- the figure may well be less that 500 km, though how to measure it may be tricky! JC Ross had been to King William Island in 1830 or so, but he had not traveled its coast; Franklin's men reached the spot via the hitherto untried Peel Sound, so its length is probably being added to the total. I will try to source this in Cyriax; he'd have the right figure. Clevelander96 (talk) 13:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. After posting my note about this yesterday, I thought to look again at a modern atlas with a scale. The Boothia Peninsula plus Somerset Island is almost exactly 300 miles long from the vicinity of the Castor and Pollux River to the northern tip. I'm guessing that this or something parallel to it is what is being referred to. Savours says Cyriax's quadrilateral had Cape Walker on the northern tip of Prince of Wales Island as its northeastern corner and King William Land (by which I think the southeastern corner of that island is meant) as its southeastern corner. The distance between those two corners would be almost exactly the same distance as the Boothia Felix distance. So if you don't find the figure in Cyriax, perhaps we could use Cyriax to define points A and B and use an atlas as the source for anyone who doubts the mileage. Finetooth (talk) 18:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I recommend we abandon all statements about "unexplored coastline," since this raises all kinds of questions (the quickest route, should one count the entire coast of all islands, etc.) and may well lead to an exaggerated figure, whereas when the plan was first made, no one knew how many miles of yet-unknown coastline might intervene in any attempt to sail in a prevailing direction.

But if instead of "unexplored" we use the term "yet unnavigated", we can stand on much firmer forzen ground. Sir John Barrow, in his original proposal for this expedition, stated that "there remains therefore to be navigated, on the Polar Sea, the distance between the Meridian of Melville Island and that of the Behring Straits, which is about 300 leagues" (cited in Cyriax, p. 18). This report was vetted by senior Arctic captains, and -- after further vetting by the Royal Society -- approved by Lord Haddington, then First Lord of the Admiralty. Cyriax himself accepts this figure, while noting that Barrow's proposed route ("SW from Cape Walker") did not take account of some intervening islands, the size of which Barrow underestimated or did not know. One might say it was calculated "as the crow flies." So I think we could say, with a citation from either Barrow (qtd. in Cyriax, p. 18) or else cite Cyriax (pp. 18-23) for his entire treatment of the question, and state that "the distance that remained to be navigated was roughly 300 leagues" (these would be nautical leagues, so this would be 1,036 miles or 1,667 km). I f we want to source the Barrow proposal directly, its earliest printed source is C.R. Weld's Arctic Expeditions (London: 1850), pp. 18-22. Clevelander96 (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

This is an excellent solution to the problem. I will use "unnavigated" and "300 leagues" (with conversions to miles and km). By the way, I added a Background section yesterday for which my source is Savours. If you see any problems with it, please let me know. Finetooth (talk) 20:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Citations needed

The work seems to be going well, and we're moving closer to the day when we might seriously consider asking for a Good Article review. However, I'm having trouble finding any support for a couple of claims made in the "Early searches" section. It may be true that "This was the largest Arctic expedition the Admiralty had ever lost," but I can't find any source for that. A few sentences later, we have: "Eventually, more ships and men were lost looking for Franklin than in the expedition itself." The "more ships" part is certainly true since the Franklin expedition lost only two, but the "more men" claim is not self-evidently true. How was this number arrived at? Can it be sourced? The third problem I'm having in this section is with the sentence, "Ballads such as "Lady Franklin's Lament" commemorating Lady Franklin's search for her lost husband, became popular." This is referenced to the McClintock book, which I have not seen. I want to remove this sentence, not because it's unsupported (and I doubt that its validity would be questioned in any case) but because it's essentially repeated in the "Fiction and arts" section, which I think is where it belongs. But I don't want to move the citation to McClintock to "Fiction and arts". It would seem odd to me to source one song individually and not the others. Perhaps it would be OK simply to list the McClintock book in the bibliography. Finetooth (talk) 18:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Good questions. I think "Lady Franklin's Lament" is a special case, since this ballad is so very widely known, and dates to the years of the original Franklin searches in the 1850's, and could therefore reasonably be mentioned as an indicator of the public interest in Franklin's fate. I do not believe the song is mentioned at all in McClintock, but you could cite my webpage here.

For "largest expedition the Admiralty had ever lost," as well as "more men than in the ships," the best reference is W. Gillies Ross's "The Type and Number of Expeditions in the Franklin Search, 1847-59" in Arctic VOL. 55, NO. 1 (MARCH 2002) P. 57–69 (this can be sourced, and the original article accessed as a .pdf, just as was done with the Keenleyside article, as all past issues of Arctic are free online). Ross lists all the searches, gives an accurate number for them, and could amply demonstrate that far more than 129 men were involved. That said, the claim itself still sounds a bit awkward -- perhaps simply an enumeration of how many men and ships did search for Franklin would be better than its comparative hyperbole? Clevelander96 (talk) 19:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and yes. I will cite Ross, and I agree that the hyperbole is awkward and that the number of ships and searchers is more to the point than the number of bad things that happened to those searchers. Finetooth (talk) 21:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

M.D. / surgeon issue

Hi Finetooth et. al,

Just a note about naval medical personnel -- "surgeon" and "assistant surgeon" are naval ranks, neither one synonymous with M.D., which was a degree from a university. Also, surgeons in England, even those with medical degrees, were more commonly referred to as "Mr." not "Dr." The personnel on Franklin's last expedition were:

HMS Erebus

Stephen Samuel Stanley, Surgeon. He was a Member of the Royal College of Surgeons, but did not have a university background or an M.D. Henry D.S.. Goodsir, Acting Assistant Surgeon. He studied medicine at Edinburgh and was an M.D..

HMS Terror

John Smart Peddie, Acting Surgeon, studied medicine at Edinburgh, therefore an M.D.. Alexander Macdonald, Assistant Surgeon, studied medicine at Edinburgh, therefore an M.D.

So one could say "Mr. Stanley, Surgeon on the Erebus," and also "Mr. Goodsir" or also "Henry Goodsir, M.D." etc. In any case, the MD you trimmed from Stanley's name was an error to begin with, so the result is accurate, but we could speak of Goodsir, Peddie, or Macdonald, as "Dr." or MD when referenced.

Hope this clarifies this sticky wicket of terminology! Clevelander96 (talk) 19:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is helpful. An additional sticky wicket that I've been wrestling with is the Wikipedia Manual of Style, which says here, "Academic and professional titles (such as "Doctor" or "Professor") should not be used before the name in the initial sentence or in other uses of the person's name. Verifiable facts about how the person attained such titles should be included in the article text instead." Thus, something like "Goodsir received his M.D. from Edinburgh" as a separate sentence after his first mention would seem to be preferred (though these caveats may best apply to biographies rather than articles like this one). I will use what you've given me here and try to work it in smoothly. Finetooth (talk) 21:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Images

A quick afterthought -- if we want to have some image of the officers on this expedition, I have a scan online here which could readily be clipped up into individual images if need be. It's out of copyright, public domain, should be easy to use. Clevelander96 (talk) 19:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

They look good. I think the page would look better with more images, and the thought of using one or more portraits is pleasing. Let's do it. I'm also working on a map, which is fun for me but takes a while to get right. Finetooth (talk) 23:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

As an afterthought, I added a John Rae image from the Commons. It would be nice to have more than enough photos and then toss out the least desirable or relevant. I doubt that I can find many crew members other than Franklin in the Commons, although I have not conducted a systematic search. Finetooth (talk) 05:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The Rae image is a great one! -- I think that this is actually (ultimately) one derived from my own website; the original is in the National Portrait Gallery in London. I like the Barrow and Hall ones as well. I would suggest perhaps we have an image for "The Expedition in Literature and the Arts" as well -- there is a good one here which was drawn by Riou for Jules Verne's novel. Lastly, might an image of Beechey Island with snow be more dramatic than one showing gravel in the summer? One of my own photographs of the site is already released to WP as a PD image; you can see it here Clevelander96 (talk) 17:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the Verne image is wonderful, and your snow image is more dramatic than the gravel. I will make both additions this evening. Finetooth (talk) 21:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, great! -- I went ahead and changed the Beechey image before I saw your note, but if you could add the Riou image that would be great! Clevelander96 (talk) 00:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. Finetooth (talk) 02:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

More citations for "other factors"

I need help with the four paragraphs of the "Other factors in the failure of the expedition". Can the entire first paragraph be attributed to Berton? If not, to whom? The second paragraph mainly repeats the "Scientific conclusions" section, which already covers ice, cold, lead poisoning, and scurvy. The last two paragraphs contain unsourced statements about Lady Franklin's powers of persuasion and the "alternative view". Does any source provide a tidy summary of the important critical debates about the Franklin expedition? If such a summary exists, we could summarize it and use it here with a citation while retaining parts of the existing four paragraphs. Finetooth (talk) 03:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I've solved this problem. A bit more could be added to "Other factors" if sources can be found. Finetooth (talk) 04:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Problems with "scientific expeditions" citations

I noticed that James Savelle was incorrectly identified as John Savelle. Before seeing that, I had thought the scientific section to be in excellent shape and well-sourced. Looking more closely, I noticed that the trace-element testing was incorrectly associated in the Wikipedia article with cannibalism. This led me to check some of the other claims in the article against the cited pages in Beattie, and, alas, things don't quite match up. For example, the article said Braine had a concussion, citing p. 149 in Beattie's book. But Beattie on pages 149 and 150 only mentions a scar on Braine's forehead "that indicated that he had been struck, or had cracked his head against an object, several years before his death." I've tried to correct these errors, but I need to re-read Beattie, carefully checking each citation in the science section against what Beattie actually says in his book. Finetooth (talk) 04:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I've fixed these problems. Finetooth (talk) 21:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Map

I uploaded the map this evening to the Commons and added it to the "Lost" section of this article. Finetooth (talk) 05:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Great map! Clevelander96 (talk) 01:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Portrayal in fiction and the arts

I should explain the change I made to the title. The Manual of Style advises against repeating in the subheads any of the important words in the main title. I have painted us into something of a corner by using "Franklin" and "Expedition" in the article title. The MOS also says to avoid using "the" in titles. Thus "The Franklin Expedition in fiction and the arts" had to be changed to something else. I took a whack at it, but if you can think of something better, go for it. I don't see anything else that needs anything in this section, which reads well and seems exceptionally thorough, except the last sentence: "Perhaps the best of the contemporary Franklin ballads is "Northwest Passage" by Stan Rogers (1981), which is regarded by some as almost the unofficial Canadian national anthem." This sentence has "perhaps the best", "regarded by some" and "almost the unofficial", none of which will get by the reviewers. We could quote an expert who says this about the Stan Rogers ballad in a peer-reviewed publication, but we can't say it here ourselves without attribution. Finetooth (talk) 05:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok. The comment about "regarded almost as the second national anthem" is actually sourceable -- it is stated in the Canadian Encyclopedia, and the current Canadian Prime Minister has been quoted with the same sentiments. I will add cites. Clevelander96 (talk) 01:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

With respect, the sentence is loaded with value judgments and vagueness, and an encyclopedia is a weak source. I think we'd be better off with: Other Franklin-inspired songs include Fairport Convention's "I'm Already There", James Taylor's "Frozen Man" (based on Beattie's photographs of John Torrington), and the contemporary Franklin ballad "Northwest Passage" by Stan Rogers (1981). Finetooth (talk) 04:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I see your point -- I would just say that if a value judgment is widely held, then it may be reported. Since we've been tagged for the Wiki Project Canada, the enormous significance of this expedition in the minds of many Canadians is something we should mention/reference somewhere. Might we say of Rogers's ballad that it is "regarded by many as one of Canada's best folk anthems"? It seems to me to merit some note of distinction. Also, now that I think of it, Canadian novelist Margaret Atwood's essay, "Concerning Franklin and His Gallant Crew" may be a better reference than the Canadian Encyclopedia; she praises Rogers and talks about this issue; I'll have a fresh look at it and see if there's a cite-able or quotable line. Thanks as ever for your posing the hard questions! Clevelander96 (talk) 12:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I reworked this material, separating it off into a paragraph on the influence of Franklin's last expedition in Canadian literature and adding an Atwood quote. I hope you'll feel this is a step in the right direction. Clevelander96 (talk) 16:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

<outdent>Yes, this is much more interesting than the single sentence and less apt to set off the point-of-view alarm bells. Atwood certainly qualifies as an expert on Canadian literature, and the encyclopedia article now serves as secondary support. The voyage's importance to Canadians in particular was a good point to make and something I had not given much thought to; I had wondered how the Inuit might regard all these reports by outsiders. Anyway, yes, this is good. Finetooth (talk) 19:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Crozier and Fitzjames

It would be lovely to have images of Crozier and Fitzjames from here if you are still up for it. If I had to choose only one, I'd pick Crozier. Finetooth (talk) 05:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree, Crozier is the one. I'll crop and add it. Clevelander96 (talk) 01:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Oops I think I messed up here -- there seems to have been some other Crozier.jpg on WP -- do you know how to fix my mistake? I think I deleted someone's image. Clevelander96 (talk) 01:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought I did but only made things worse by hitting the revert button. A very strange image popped up, and I don't know why. I tried to revert to your image but to no avail. I usually upload to the Commons to my own account there, and I've never uploaded an image to Wikipedia itself. I will fiddle around some more and see if I can get it right. Finetooth (talk) 04:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

<outdent>Reverting seems to have solved the problem for the other guys. The strange image turns out to be a character, General Crozier, in a computer game. I will see if I can upload Captain Crozier under a different name. Finetooth (talk) 04:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't fix our half of the problem, though, because I can't say that the image belongs to me and that I'm releasing it. The only fix that I can see is for you to re-upload the file as captaincrozier.jpg or some other name unlike the existing file. Finetooth (talk) 04:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Good solution, will do. Clevelander96 (talk) 12:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Done! Clevelander96 (talk) 12:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

He looks great. Thank you for doing this. Finetooth (talk) 19:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Crozier's note

I'm uncertain as to why Crozier's note has been removed. It's an extraordinarily important document -- a copy was bound into every copy of McClintock's book, it was reproduced on the cover of Harper's Weekly (see this image here from my site), and I can't imagine any account of Franklin's last expedition being complete without it. Is there a better place to put it? Do we want a better (larger, clearer) version? Let me know, but my strong vote is to keep this image, and if anything make it more prominent in the entry. Clevelander96 (talk) 01:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I will put it back. I'm really happy to have your input. We seem to be on our own here, and I've been making a quite large number of editorial decisions with feedback only from you. Do you think the two artist's impressions, "Fox on a rock" and "sledging" are worth keeping elsewhere on the page? They are fun to look at but fanciful and perhaps a bit silly. Finetooth (talk) 03:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks; I appreciate it! About the "Fox" images, I think they're fine, though they are as you say "artist's renderings", as would be any such images. There are some engravings I have from the Illustrated London News which are a bit more detailed, and are said to be based on sketches or photographs made on the spot by McClintock or his officers -- but they are not very different, and the better level of detail would not show up at lower resolutions. If you'd like, though, I'd be happy to upload them (it looks as though I may need to finally give in and get an account at the Wikimedia Commons!). Clevelander96 (talk) 12:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Setting up an account at Wikimedia wasn't hard, but reading the legal language about licensing made me clutch my head and groan. I settled on dual licensing, GFDL and cc-by-sa-3.0, which seems to make the material freely available to anybody for any purpose, which is my intention. However, I don't pretend to understand all of the possible licensing variations. On the other hand, the Wikimedia account stores all my uploaded images in one gallery, and I don't think anyone else can overwrite my files. About the matter of the "Fox" images and/or your engraving images, I'd like to use one or two or three if we can find places to put them. I'm not sure. It would be nice to have images of some sort in the "Scientific expeditions" section, but I haven't found anything that quite fits the context. I found an image of a pewter plate, but its copper color suggested low lead content, and for that reason I didn't use it. If you have any ideas for graphics for the science section, that would be great. I'll play around a bit with the "Fox" images to see if they will fit into the layout, and if you see a place for anything you have, I say go for it. Finetooth (talk) 19:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Wikimedia is a bit of a jungle -- the licensing and rights issues are complex, and their modes of arranging them are quite Byzantine! As it is, I have had to upload the recent images to WP as if they had to be licensed, then change the comment box to reflect their PD status, which is a bit of a pain. For the Scientific expeditions section I have hundreds of good images (members of most of the 1990's-era KWI searches have shared their photos with me, and I have my own from when I was up there in 2004). But to upload these I would have to ask them to give me some sort of license, or upload them themselves, another fine mess, I'm afraid! Another possibility would be to ask Anne Keenleyside if she would mind if we used some of the digitized versions of her illustrations which have been reproduced here; I have been in touch with her recently and the images are fairly low-res so perhaps she wouldn't mind. I will certainly ask! Clevelander96 (talk) 20:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

<outdent>Yes, I have no trouble licensing my own photos. The maps are more complicated because I have to acknowledge the base map sources, and they have to be in the public domain. U.S. government productions like the Census maps, most NASA maps, and CIA maps all seem to be OK. But I don't know how to handle images created by someone else and not already licensed unless the copyrights have expired. It would be wonderful to be able to use some of the Keenleyside photos, but I'm not sure how the copyright issues could be addressed unless by lucky chance she has a Wikimedia account and would upload digitized images to the Commons. Or, the low-res solution might work; I haven't licensed anything with a low-res, educational use rationale, but I have seen examples of it on Wikipedia. Finetooth (talk) 21:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

GAN?

I think we've improved the article enough that it could reasonably be submitted as a Good Article candidate. I've been through that process once as the main contributor to the article on Basin, Montana, and I've been through the process once as the reviewer of Hanford Site. This is more than zero experience with the GA process, but it is also not a lot of experience. Would you approve if I submitted the article this week as a Good Article nominee? It might be weeks or months before a reviewer volunteers to make an assessment, or it could happen more quickly. When it happens, more questions and changes are inevitable, and they will probably have to be dealt with promptly, usually seven days from the time the review is posted on this talk page. I would be happy to deal with all of the reviewer's questions and suggestions if I possibly can, but you are the expert on content, and I'm not sure I could handle every question without you. Finetooth (talk) 19:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm game! For experience, I can claim nothing at all -- I've never been through any sort of WP review process (although, for a time, I slogged away as "Assistant Approvals Manager" at Citizendium, which was a headache and a half! But I think I could, assuming the reviewers make sensible suggestions, make reasonable replies and work to effect changes that address any concerns. So count me in-- how does it work? Clevelander96 (talk) 20:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll do the "paperwork" unless you'd like to. You'll find a full explanation of the details at WP:GAN. The reviewer could be anybody in the world except you or me. The reviewer of my Basin, Montana, article was a geographer from Scotland who made excellent suggestions that led me to add a whole new section dealing with the 14,000 years of Montana history before the arrival of gold prospectors in the Basin area in the 1860s. Having an outsider with fresh eyes and acute powers of observation was most helpful in improving the article. On the other hand, we are not obligated to agree with every suggestion a reviewer might make, and if things go really badly, we can withdraw the nomination. I assume you wouldn't mind if I fixed the nit-picky things like missing italics and comma splices without discussion, but we could discuss any big changes before doing anything radical. And, as you know, all changes can be reverted. Finetooth (talk) 21:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I am grateful to you for the "paperwork" -- will stand ready for whatever needs doing to make this entry the best it can be. Clevelander96 (talk) 04:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Done this morning. "History" seemed to be the most appropriate category, and Franklin is #14 on the waiting list. I added the required tag to the top of this talk page. Finetooth (talk) 18:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Caption improvements, page numbers

I've been adding a little more information to each of the short captions to make them more interesting and to tie them better to the main text. When I clicked on Image:Franklin raerels 800.jpg to read the image description, I noticed that someone (or a robot) had inserted a tag asking for more information. If you could fill this in with any relevant data (what the objects are, where they were found, or other who, what, where, when data) that you have, it would be helpful. Some or all of this information could then be used in the caption. On a more nit-picky level, if you know the exact page numbers or range of page numbers for citations 71 (Atwood) and 72 (Potter), it would be good to include them. I can add them if you tell me what they are. Finetooth (talk) 21:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Non-free use

If any of the Keenleyside scientific images become available to you, the Wikipedia template {{Non-free use rationale}} might come in handy. Although the Commons does not accept non-free content, Wikipedia allows some if the rationale is appropriate. I think the low-res, educational use, important for reader understanding, no free images available rationale would be acceptable. See WP:RAT for more information. Finetooth (talk) 21:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Peglar's friend

I wonder whether it's appropriate to state, matter-of-factly, that Armitage was "a friend of Peglar". Is there any documentation that he was? Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that the only grounds for stating so is that Armitage had served on a ship previously with Peglar, which can hardly lead from A to B. 71.136.180.146 (talk) 18:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a reasonable point -- to be completely factual and neutral, we should probably just say "shipmate" or perhaps "longtime shipmate." They had served together before on HMS Gannett between 1834 and 1837 (this is from Woodman, Strangers Among Us, p. 153. Also I would note that the National Maritime Museum describes Armitage as a "friend" of Pelgar here, though this may simply be their conjecture based on Woodman's findings. Clevelander96 (talk) 20:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll toss in my two cents too. I changed "friend" to "shipmate" to be safe, but Savours says "friend" on p. 295 of The Search for the North West Passage, referencing R.J. Cyriax and A.G.E. Jones, "The Papers in the Possession of Harry Peglar, Captain of the Foretop, HMS Terror, 1845, Mariner's Mirror, Vol 40, No. 3, 1954, p. 186-95." I have not read the Cyriax and Jones article, but it might settle the question definitively. Finetooth (talk) 00:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

As luck would have it, I have a copy of Cyriax's original typescript for his article "The Papers in the Possession of Harry Peglar". After noting Armitage & Peglar's service together, the final paragraph reads as follows, and I quote: "It seems possible, therefore, that the skeleton was not that of Peglar, but of one of his friends, perhaps Armitage, to whom Peglar had entrusted his seamen's certificate, a narrative of his services at sea, and other documents. But no certainty can be reached, and the interest attaching to the papers themselves is no way affected by the identity of the victim who had the papers in his possession when he died." My sense then would be that, if Cyriax (the ultimate source for this idea of a possible friendship) says "no certainty can be reached" even as to identity, let alone friendship, that "shipmate" would be our best choice. Clevelander96 (talk) 00:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, and I'd like to say to 71.136.180.146 thank you for raising the question and to say to Clevelander96 how impressed I am that you could lay your hands on that document so quickly. Finetooth (talk) 03:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

I have transferred the discussions to Archive Page talk:Franklin's lost expedition/GA1, and added a summary review to that page. Good luck with the article if you decide to take it further, and also with your other projects. Feel free to contact my talk page if you think I can help. Brianboulton (talk) 12:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Captain or Rear Admiral Franklin

I see that an anonymous IP user has changed Franklin's rank from Rear Admiral to Captain, saying that was his rank at the time of the exhibition. What does the Manual of Style say? Along with many of the other senior officers, Franklin was "gazetted" (promoted in absentia via a notice in the Naval Gazette). Should we use their final ranks at time of presumed death, or the ranks held at sailing? Clevelander96 (talk) 16:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that change and was tempted to revert to Rear Admiral, but I hesitated because I do not know which is correct. "Captain" sounds like a demotion. Perhaps User:Brianboulton would know. Finetooth (talk) 20:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the change. He was not promoted to Rear Admiral until years after his death thus, as it's worded now, it's correct. One might just leave the rank out of the sentence also. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed -- according to the Oxford DNB, Franklin was not promoted until October 1852, more than five years after his actual death -- so this promotion could not have in fact had any effect. I think it best all round for the article if we use all officers' ranks as of sailing in 1845, especially since for all but Franklin, the date of death is unknown. Clevelander96 (talk) 01:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Intro too long

I think the intro would read better if it was only one or two paragraphs, enough to give a reader a taste of what is to follow. There's a lot of information that, while worthy of mention in the main piece, seems rather extraneous here, like Franklin's service as governor of Tasmania. Several different aspects of the voyage are discussed in detail when they should probably be passed over in a brief sentence. I would suggest that the intro might be better condensed to something like this:

Captain Sir John Franklin's lost expedition was a doomed British voyage of Arctic exploration that departed England in 1845. An experienced Arctic explorer, Franklin's fourth and last Arctic expedition was meant to traverse the last unnavigated section of the Northwest Passage. After receiving no word from Franklin in three years, the Admiralty launched a search for the missing expedition in 1848. Many efforts by British and American crews culminated in a search led by Francis Leopold McClintock in 1859 which discovered evidence confirming that the entire expedition complement of 129 men had died of causes natural and unnatural after their ships became icebound in Victoria Strait near King William Island in the Canadian Arctic. More recent anthropological studies have suggested that cold, starvation, lead poisoning, and disease including scurvy were primarily to blame, and that some of Franklin's men resorted to cannibalism. Franklin's lost expedition has been the subject of many artistic works, including songs, verse, short stories, and novels, as well as television documentaries.

Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.13.208 (talk) 04:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Some condensation of the opening may be worthwhile -- the Tasmanian governorship is certainly peripheral to this entry -- but I do think it's important to get a fairly full abstract into the opening paragraph, and that doing so is part of what makes this an encyclopedic entry -- I particularly think the "several different aspects" are absolutely vital, and a strong alternative to the murky and fuzzy accounts of this event in many other references. I'll have a look at giving the opening a bit of a trim. Clevelander96 (talk) 13:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

New search

I couldn't figure out where to put in Feds to search for Franklin's doomed ships and Ottawa to mount search for lost Franklin ships. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 23:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi CBW, have created a new section for the 2008 search. Clevelander96 (talk) 01:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 14:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

It would be good to give a source or sources for this new information, particularly since the rest of the article has been so carefully supported by sources. Finetooth (talk) 17:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• Canada to search for Arctic explorer's ships (AP). Gwen Gale (talk) 02:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, starting to add -- official sources 1st, then major journalistic coverage. Clevelander96 (talk) 03:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you User:Gwen Gale. I have added a citation. Somehow I have managed to exactly overlap User:Clevelander96 again. It is uncanny. I think we have a long-distance psychic connection. Anyway, yes, Clevelander, if you've got more or better stuff or sources, go for it. I like your much better image of Hall, by the way. Finetooth (talk) 03:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Another split?

As the scientific search section grows, it might become big enough to split off as a separate article. Any thoughts? Finetooth (talk) 18:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2