Wikipedia:Peer review/S. A. Andrée's Arctic balloon expedition of 1897/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

S. A. Andrée's Arctic balloon expedition of 1897[edit]

I just wrote this and do intend it for FAC eventually, but worry that my ignorance might be showing. Review from all sorts of angles would be very much appreciated. I hope you'll find the story a bit colorful and weird and also tragic, and that you'll enjoy the fantastic photos from 1897. They were retrieved from films that had first been lying in the snow in the Arctic for 33 years. Sorry the references are mostly in Swedish, but there's not a lot I can do about that. Bishonen | ノート 19:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Some things I personally think could be improved:
  • "No modern Andrée researcher has expressed any faith in drag ropes as a balloon steering technique." under the first heading seems a bit confusing to me, either it's a balloon expert or a historian researching Andrée, it should be narrowed to either one of those fields (unless "Andrée researcher" is a real title :))
  • The numbered list (#) could just as well be a bulleted list (*) unless the numbers serve a purpose.
  • In the paragraph following the numbered list, disambig deviation, I'd do it myself but I wasn't sure which articles it would be.
  • I don't know how the concept of currencies in the past is normally handled, but there should be some attempt made to indicate exactly how much much for example 130,800 kronor is, hell, I don't even know how much that would be today.
  • In general, increase the wikilink density, as of now they're just a little too sparse, a few more are needed to meet the (my) aestetic optimum, without overdoing it, though.
  • I was a little confused by the use of the term "topping-up", it's probably just foreign to me, though.
  • I'm not really sure if kg is supposed to be pluralized in its abbreviated form, it just gives me the gut feeling of being incorrect.
  • Those 8 million holes, did they come from the stitches? Clarify
  • On the First paragraph of "On the ice" - I found the term self-abuse rather amusing, I changed it to self-trigger :D
  • I'd like that 360 degree panorama as a divider as an end of the "The 1897 disaster" if it's available online (it should be public domain, right?)
  • I think Lundström should be introduced a little better somewhere before the reference section (just mention that he was a historian, non-contemporary of Andrée or something)
Other than that, the prose is really good, it gave me a whole new view (and probably the right one) on Andrée than the one I left his museum in Grenna with, it'll be a shame to see it being sloppily edited by the Main page exposure when it reaches FA status (it will!)
The use of images is at an optimum (with room for that 360, though), there is no single place in the article where an image is not visible (at least on my screen resolution), which is good since it enhances the aesthetics of the article. Good luck, see you on FAC  :) --Obli (Talk)? 21:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for going through it! I left the placeholder "self-abuse" in by mistake, sorry [blush]. :-) Did you not see my link to the panorama, in the footnote? It's not a 360°-all-at-once strip, but more like an animation. I wonder if I can make it clearer. I do want people to notice the link and go look, because it's very interesting, especially with being so recently discovered. A couple of the photos in it were already well-known and much-reproduced in their own right. Martinsson claims copyright in his version, and that seems reasonable to me—frankly, even if I had a legal right to use it, which I doubt, I don't think it would be fair.
About the currencies, and also the measurements, I totally agree. It would be a big help if somebody'd kindly take a look at the meters and kronor etc and do what needs doing about them. I don't know what the standard way is for showing conversions, anyway. Also I'm a little petrified by the consideration that the various sums of money mentioned, always in Swedish kronor, probably ought not to be simply converted into dollars or whatever at today's rate, but that what the reader needs is rather an indication of what those sums would mean today. For instance, was 130,000 kronor for a polar expedition a lot or a little? A historical conversion. I've no idea how to go about performing that. Thanks again for your help! Bishonen | ノート 21:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Obli, a little more by way of reply: the 8 million holes, yes, they're from the stitching. They're referred to as "tiny stitching holes along the seams", I don't know how to make it clearer. Any suggestions?
Hmm, must have missed that part, I didn't find it when I read the article, you can disregard that point. --Obli (Talk)? 06:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
About Lundström: good idea. I've put something about him being the curator of the Andrée museum into the first footnote he's involved in. Putting it in the actual text might be seen as metadata, I think.
Well, I'm quite unsure if it's appropriate to speak of "topping up" a balloon with a little more hydrogen, the way you'd top up a person's glass at a party. I was a bit desperate, I needed a term, I made one up. :-) Perhaps someone else can figure a better word for "fylla på"?
It just seemed appropriate to number the list because I'd just said (quoting Andrée) that specifically four things were necessay. Hmm.. maybe not. I'll just think about it a little more. Bishonen | ノート 02:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Will read the full article later this week, at the moment all I've done is found out that the price level in Sweden between 1897 and 2005 has incread by a factor 52.5, according to SCB (see Excel file for full data), which would mean that the 130,000 kronor in 1897 would be equivalent to about 6.8 million kronor today. However I don't know what to compare it to. – Elisson • Talk 22:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Less than $1,000,000 USD? They flew on the cheap! Geogre 23:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's brilliant as far as it goes, Johan, I've put it in there with a footnote to SCB. Thank you. (And thank you very much for doing the map.) Now if somebody would do the meter/km conversions into those wild old ft and miles... it's not actually that I can't manage to convert the one to the other, but I have a nasty feeling that you're supposed to code it in some fancy way so people see the one they prefer on the page, or whatever, and that's all a mystery to me. Anybody know it? Please? Bishonen | ノート 08:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

(reduce) I will do the conversion if you wish - be sure to let me know if you do NOT want me to, otherwise I will go ahead and run a formula on the distances to convert. I looked and so far as I can see the idea of auto-format based on preferences is still a gleam in someone's eye. So it will have to be in format XX.X km (XX.X mi) or something similar. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, great. Please, please do. Not that I don't deplore the necessity of inserting those quaint archaic units — I do — you see how even in 1897, the European scientific community goes 100% with the metric system? — but apparently it is a necessity, and so I'd love for it to be done. The kgs as well? And would you also make my forms of the units proper — I mean, "m" or "meter", is the plural of "kg" "kgs" or "kg" or something else, and like that? I didn't know what are the most approved forms, and so, well, frankly, I went with an, ahem, pleasing variety. Not proper, obviously. Thank you, arf, arf. Bishonen | ノート 16:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Ok, evil measurements in place. I went to 2 decimal places, did not convert the one instance I saw of litres; did not convert the metres mentioned in quotes; please let me know if I missed any or you prefer the figures to be rounded (and how much.) KillerChihuahua?!? 17:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Having read the whole article, there are very few things I reacted on:
  • S.A. Andrée's scheme, second paragraph: "distance of 1,500 km (930 m)" The abbreviation for mile, a simple "m", doesn't feel right. Is it supposed to be that way or is there a finishing "i" missing?
  • The 1896 fiasco, last paragraph: "His meteorological journal allows the movements of the three men during their last few months to be reconstructed with considerable exactness." The tense in this sentence feels weird. Change "allows" to "has allowed"?
  • I'd like to read more about who found the bodies, in which shape they were (pretty well conserved thanks to the cold, I guess?), and so on.
  • It would also be interresting to know the reactions, if any, in other countries (both in 1987 and in 1930). Was the expedition known by the general public in other countries at the turn of the century?
Your English is better than mine so I won't comment on the prose (and I have no comments on it either). Overall I think this article is ready for FAC. And a compliment to person who drew the map. Very good looking. ;D – Elisson • Talk 21:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
m is correct for mile; unfortunately, it is also correct for meter. mi is also correct - it depends on your style guide, and WP doesn't specify that I could find. We can easily change all the instances of m to mi. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good ideas, Johan, thanks! I'm very glad to know at what points lack of information becomes frustrating for the reader. I've added a bit more international perspective to "Promotion and fundraising" and "Myth and legacy", please see if it addresses your concerns on that point.
Er, are you quite sure you'd like to know about the bodies, though? It's a bit gross. There wasn't actually a lot left. I suppose the bears had been there, whether they killed the men or just came by for a snack afterwards. (For myself, I think polar bear attack is one of the better cause of death theories.) It's a bit of a weird note to end on. :-( But it's no good if it leaves the reader frustrated, I'll take a look tomorrow and see if I can do something without being too disgusting. And now, do you, does anybody, have any suggestion for what could be taken out? I'm having trouble killing my darlings--all the colorful details--but I do think this page is near or over the limit of what's a reasonable size for such a subject. And, yes, I'm very proud of the map. :P. Bishonen | ノート 22:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • This is an amazingly cool and detailed article! The only thing I see immediately are references without footnoting. While not a bad thing, surely there's something they were used to confirm if they are a reference. Staxringold 01:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm delighted you like the page! I've tried to only list references that are used inline in the article, and I think it's the case that nearly all the references are used for footnotes. The exceptions are the last two, Sundman and Tryde, which are instead cited directly in the article text. Lessee... Sundman's docunovel is referred to in the Lead, in the "1896 fiasco" section, and in "Myth and legacy". It's a quite important reference, as it has very much influenced the way Andrée is regarded in Sweden today. Tryde's book is in "Cause of death". The reason those guys don't have footnotes is that they don't need page references, as I'm referring to the whole books. (No redundant footnotes on my watch! Excelsior!) But they've been used, they need to be listed as references. Do you have any examples of unused references? Likely enough I've missed something. Bishonen | ノート 21:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Very interesting. I think the WP:LEAD is not really summary style, and is too long. (I should know, I write VERY LONG leads.) Kaisershatner 19:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks! That's intriguing. See, I think it's overlong. But I thought it was about right according to WP:LEAD. The measure given there is very vague, though. I definitely will shorten it, since you agree with me; I prefer it shorter. More urgently, though, how do you mean it's not summary style? I thought it was. Could you be more specific? Bishonen | ノート 21:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • OK, thanks everybody, taking this suckah to FAC right now. Bishonen | ノート 00:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/S._A._Andrée%27s_Arctic_balloon_expedition_of_1897/archive1&oldid=1138565171"