User talk:Brianboulton/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Rhinemaidens

Hi, I just noticed the illustration at the top of Gunther. This is a picture that predates the completion of the Ring and shows river nymphs receiving the nibelung horde into the Rhine. Is this just Cornelius's imagination? Was he correspondent of Wagner and had read the Ring poems? Or does this indicate a tradition (possibly in the Nibelunglied) which hasn't been properly ackowledged by our sources?--Peter cohen (talk) 10:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Wagner did not follow the Nibelungenlied exactly, he created his story loosely from it (and other sources). I believe this is clear in our text (see first paragraph of Origins). Nowhere in Wagner's Ring does Gunther meet the Rhinemaidens. The Gunther article is not about Wagner's Gunther, nor is Cornelius's painting. The painting relates to Adventure 19 of the Nibelungenlied, in which Hagen sinks the treasure in the Rhine, though not on Gunther's express orders. The Rhinemaidens are not mentioned in this story. Brianboulton (talk) 16:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

An Inconvenient Truth

I did many of the suggestions for An Inconvenient Truth peer review; how is it looking now?--The lorax (talk) 16:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

AWITC

All your points have been followed/replied. Please revisit. Rafablu88 18:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

^Same as above really. Rafablu88 00:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe all your concerns have now been fully addressed. User:Fvasconcellos did two sweeps in the past two days and I did a comprehensive one last night on prose and one today on citations. In the meantime, most of User:Indopug's advice was followed. Fvasconcellos believes that, if anything, only minor tweaks could remain. Rafablu88 15:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Quick Question: Do you think you're in a position to support considering that your advice was followed accordingly and you've now struck the oppose? RB88 (T) 13:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Still considering. Brianboulton (talk) 13:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Arthur Eve

If I open up a new Arthur Eve PR would you want to handle it. I have expanded his article based on details in a book I just received.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll do it. It may be a few days, though. I'm still trying to catch up with the time I have lost over Lang. Brianboulton (talk) 23:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I have listed it at PR.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Enjoy your travels.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

When you get a chance strike any successfully resolved issues. I have tried to address your concerns.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The Ex-Girlfriend

Hi, first of all, thank you for reviewing my "The Ex-Girlfriend" article for PR. I've fixed all of you comments, would you mind taking another look?--Music26/11 16:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have dealt with some rather than all of my points. I still think that the plot section is weak, and my views on the Cultural references section remain. But it's your article. I enjoyed reviewing it, especially as it gave me the chance to watch that episode again. Brianboulton (talk) 21:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't really know how to make the plot section stronger. Also, I kinda agree with the cultural references thing, but these sections are quite common in TV episode articles and I see no reason to remove it.--Music26/11 22:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

first nations

hello what you are saying makes sense...but i can not find the peer review request...if you have time pls fell free to remove it Talk:First Nations Buzzzsherman (talk) 02:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I archived the PR and put the notice on the article's talk page, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

John Christie

I was wondering if you'd like to review the John Christie (murderer) article again. I've addressed the problems you raised in your peer review so would be interested in getting further feedback from you about the rest of the article. Cheers Wcp07 (talk) 04:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your additional comments! Wcp07 (talk) 01:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Congrats!

I see the turbulent priest made it through! So did Dick!--Wehwalt (talk) 23:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Werner Moelders FAC

Brian, your comments on the Werner Mölders article were succinct and, I think, valuable in improving the article. As a "newbie" to all this, it's good to see how things are viewed and reviewed. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Re PR query

The problem is that 2009 ACC Championship Game is being reviewed as part of a Featured Topic - articles that are too short to be FA or even GA but are part of the topic need to be peer reviewed. See WP:WIAFT criteria 3c Items that are ineligible for featured article, featured list or good article status, either due to their limited subject matter (in the case of lists only) or due to inherent instability (in the case of either articles or lists), must have passed an individual quality audit that included a completed peer review, with all important problems fixed. I have never understood the requirement (and there are zero guidelines as to what the peer review is supposed to say / do / point out, nor is there a requirement that I can see that the PR points be addressed). I will make a few comments on the PR. Sigh. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

PS I must also offer my congrats on Cosmo Lang getting its well-deserved FA star - I missed it on FAC completely and would have gladly supported. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Anything else?

Its taken me a while, but I've answered all your tips on the Sean Bennett peer review. Is there anything else I should do before bring it to GA?--Giants27 (c|s) 22:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Two requests and a proposition

I semi-protected Scott for a month and will be glad to do the PR backlog duties. Could you give me an idea of the maps you think may be required? I think I would be OK with making them - Dincher and I are going to try and get another state park to FA soon and are working on one for GA now. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

There are good and free maps here of the Franz Josef archipelago and the region. I will consider being a co-nom, but it seems a bit much for the relative amount of work involved. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Um... how do I get to the maps when I go to here? Is there a log-in process? Brianboulton (talk) 23:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

When I first go there I see a map of the USA and can move over to Franz Josef Land and zoom in - you can also type in the search term and for FJL it is a really close up view, so I just zommed out a lot to see the archipelago. It is just a map of the islands, not of the kayak voyage. Not sure what to do if there is no map - I can make a screenshot of the map I was thinking of using and upload it here if you want. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, I got the maps, thanks. I'll consider how best to use them when I get back on Friday. Brianboulton (talk) 07:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I will be glad to do my best to make the desired maps. If you want me to be a co-nom, I won't say no (and have been a co-nom once for less). I have quite a soft spot for lighter than air travel and knew of the Norge, but must admit I had not heard of the Fram and its planned drift. I am working on a map of a high school and on a state park and then can turn to polar maps. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Markham

I had a brief look at the article on clements Markham and noticed you had a lot to do with it. I became interested because I was writing about george Tryon, who was drowned when Albert Markham's ship rammed Tryon's. So then I was trying to find out something about what sort of man Albert was. And noted that his principle listed biography was by Markham (not quite sure yet which. Albert seems to have been very fond of his cousin Clements, so i looked him up. His principle biography seems to be by Albert. As Albert is elsewhere sort of reported as only ever getting on with one person, clements, (and possibly vice-versa) this suggests it might not be the most impartial account the world has ever seen. I was therfore wondering which biography of Clements you felt was most useful? The Markhams as a family seem to have been quite keen on writing about each other, and thus are legends born.... Sandpiper (talk) 10:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!

I'd like to thank you for your constructive and good-willed criticism regarding Hungarian orthography. I don't have time at the moment to re-work the article accordingly, but I'll keep your suggestions in mind and I'll possibly return to them in the future one by one. I wouldn't like to delete details from the article, but I'm open to splitting it or merging some of its parts into other relevant articles, without loss in the content. Thank you again. Adam78 (talk) 21:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

tonics?

thanks Brian. I don't know if I have helped or made matters worse. <crosses eyes> Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

How about making a Sacrifice?

Hey Brian, I have expanded the real-time strategy video game article, Sacrifice. I would especially appreciate a non-gamer's perspective on the accessibility of this article. If you have the time as well, copyediting (to correct my dreadful prose) is definitely appreciated. Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 03:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll be pleased to do this, though you do your prose less than justice. You have been lying low a while - I wondered what you might be doing. Back to gaming then? I'm back to the cold climates, struggling in sandboxes with Nansen; first draft expected soon. Brianboulton (talk) 08:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. My office work is starting to increase (I am heading a project), so the time spent here would definitely be less than before. I no longer can spend so much time in reviewing several articles worth of images and such, but I think I can spend a bit of time here and there for odds and ends. Sacrifice was something I have wanted to write for a long time (since the time I wrote Giants: Citizen Kabuto), so most of the structure was already in mind; it just needed fleshing out. Jappalang (talk) 11:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Marshalsea

Hello Brian, I was wondering if you could look again at the Marshalsea FAC. I've dealt with a lot of your concerns, though not all, as several aren't required for FA (e.g. ISBNs). But I think I may have dealt with most of them. The issues you raised are in the Brian section, and my responses are in Fixes, currently points 3-15, under your name. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. A couple of things were fixed that you didn't strike through. See Fixes, points 16-19. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Also this. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Don't feel there's any rush, by the way, just because I'm responding. I'm just mentally ticking things off as I deal with them, and if I don't leave you a note about them now, I will forget, because my memory is capable of holding only a few seconds' worth of information these days. :)

I'm glad you liked the photograph. :D I think I was three at the time. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Brian, thanks for the offer of help, which is very kind of you. Yes, it has become very stressful. I've taken the page off my watchlist, and I'll instead look at it every couple of days in case there are new objections. In the meantime, to address your points:

1. ISBNs are never required. See WP:CITE#Citation_styles and WP:ISBN#Uses and limitations of ISBNs. The guidelines apart, I can't think when they would realistically be needed by readers.

2. I changed "like most other rules, it was ignored," to "but, as with the sale of alcohol, it was a rule that was not enforced." I'll either find a source who says this explicitly, or I'll remove it.

3. I will add metric conversions.

4. I have no idea how to find conversions from shillings, but I'll ask the person who first put up the pounds conversion, though I question the value of them, as they must be fairly wild guesses.

Finally, thanks for doing the no-break spaces. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Heh. I find ISBNs incredibly useful in showing that sources aren't self-published or from a fringe source, but Slim is correct, they are not required. I will often go in and add them, especially if I've done some digging and found out something isn't fishy, but they aren't required. Adding them does get you brownie points with the RS-fairy though! Ealdgyth - Talk 00:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The reader would have to know that self-published sources sometimes don't have ISBNs, though they often do; I'm looking at one on my desk right now that does. And anything from a fringe source might easily have one too. I would like the brownie points, of course, but I feel I have to hold the anti-instruction-creep line. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is the template for money conversion. I can't see anything that relates to shillings and pence, unless I'm missing it. I've added conversions for miles, square feet, and feet. I can't find yards. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I've worked out yards myself and added them. Shillings, I found an offwiki table for, but it's somewhat pointless to add it. For example, ten shillings in 1728 is £57.95 in 2009 using the retail price index or £772.76 using average earnings, so it tells us nothing. [1] I did add this one thing as a footnote, but I see no point in doing it for the other figures. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough with the ISBNs, though since I need every brownie point I can get, I'll continue to include them in my own work. On the money conversions, Measuringworth.com is an excellent source, though it does tend to over-complicate things. I don't think that average earnings calculations are relevant in this instance, and I would drop the words "or £773 using average earnings" from your parenthetical note. I have linked "2s 6d" to an appropriate page, so readers can easily deduce that 2s 6d was an eighth of a pound, which is perhaps all they need to know. Brianboulton (talk) 10:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Ross Sea party

Congratulations on this article becoming Featured Article for the Day. I just read through it and it is excellent—the pacing is crisp, not bogged down in detail as it easily could have been, and the story is gripping. Thanks very much for a wonderful read. Jonyungk (talk) 12:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind comments. This was actually my first featured article, from February 2008. Last month I spent a little time titivating it, because it had depreciated a little and also, FA standards have risen somewhat since then. I had no idea that the article would be selected for the main page, but I'm glad now that I made it presentable. Brianboulton (talk) 12:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Nansen maps

I am still planning on making the maps and think I can meet that schedule. I finally finished my latest map and you are next in line. I made a quick File:Franz Josef Land Map.PNG for the archipelago if needed (and can delete it if needed). Is there a source map for the journey through the archipelago? Or is there a source for the line to be added to File:Arctic Ocean - en.png? I am working on the base map for the main chart (need to add Svalbard) and then will work on the lines. The article looks good - I will make some comments once it is "done". Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback - here is quick thought - could the large Franz Josef Land map be photographed with a digital camera (instead of scanned)? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, I made a drift map and added it to the article. How does it look? Any changes or tweaks that need to be made or errors to correct? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Would it be possible for the red line to come a little closer to the New Siberian Islands before swinging north? Otherwise, fine! Brianboulton (talk) 15:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, I moved the red line closer - you may have to WP:BYC to see the change. Will work on the base map for the overall journey next. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The position of the line is spot-on. But...sorry, this has just occurred to me...the drift was to start from the New Siberian Islands; up to that point the line represents Fram's voyage. But as Nansen changed his mind and didn't come through the Bering Straits, that part of the line is really rather redundant. I'm really sorry I didn't think of this before, but on reflection I think the line needs to start at the New Siberian Islands. Would you mind (grovel, grovel)? Brianboulton (talk) 16:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem at all - the line now starts at the New Siberian Islands (again bypassing your cache may be required to see it). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what the problem was - resizing the image forces the browser to redraw it, so I made it 310 pixels wide for now and restored your caption. You can put it back to 300 px in a day or two and it should be fine. Is the map OK as is now? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

(out) I will work on the overall voyage map first, then if I have the time and interest will work on the FJ Land map (also if reading the final article it seems as if it is needed). I desperately need to finish a state park article for PR and have promised to weigh in on another PR and an FAC, so I will work on the other map in the next few days. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I will work on the maps tonight - the main issue is I need to make a base map with the Eurasian mainland and the islands of SPitsbergen (by combining two maps, I think). The more I think about it, I think the Franz Joesef Land map is needed too (and should be easier). Would you prefer this map File:Blank Franz Joseph Land.svg or this File:Franz Josef Land Map.PNG as the base map? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I made the Franz Josef Land map as it was easier. Here it is - what needs to be changed / fixed / altered? Should a large legend be added in the upper left hand corner (perhaps something like "Franz Josef Land islands, with the path of Nansen and Johansen (August 1895 to June 1896)")? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, I will try to add all of the items suggested. Before I do that, are the labels large enough? On my monitor they seem fairly small at thumb width (250 px in my settings). I could make them a bit larger, but if I do that I should do it before anything else (so I will wait to hear from you before doing anything else). Also have some comments for the article which I will add to its talk page and will look at it with adding the awful original map in mind. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, I have added 80 and 82 degrees north to my base map - do you want 81 while I am it? (Easier to add now than later). The map will be slightly taller as 82 was just off the border before. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's the base map (with no labels) showing only the islands (since I redid it, I picked a version in Open Street Map with a bit more detail), lines for 80, 81, and 82 N, and the red voyage line. Is this OK before I start adding labels? I saved it under a different name so others could add labels in other languages if desired. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

(out) OK, here it is - since the labels are a lot larger, I did not overlap the islands. Is this OK? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot the arrow - it is just the refresh problem. Will add the arrow and then upload the final version. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The arrow has been added on the straight section of the red line near Cape Fligely - not sure how long until the refresh issue goes away. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I read the article pretty carefully and made some comments on the talk page, as well as some edits where it seemed obvious to me what needed to be fixed. I think I would like to wait until the final new map is in place to see what the layout looks like (before deciding on the includion of the Payer map). Two other thoughts I had about the Payer map were to at least link it, perhaps in a note (to see the map, see LINK) or perhaps to put it side by side with a current map or satellite photo of the archipelago (there are templates that allow two images to be displayed side by side). I will write you at length about the last map in a few hours - it is proving more difficult than anticipated to get a decent base map and I have some questions for you on what is needed. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I added a distance scale to this map as it was something you'd requested (and I forgot). I have finished the large base map and am adding lin es for voyages. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Request

If you'd be so kind (and constructively merciless) as to peer review Remain in Light, I'd be extremely grateful. Your FAC review on A Weekend in the City was one of the most thorough I've had. RB88 (T) 15:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I am never merciless, merely cold, clinical, humourless and anal. So I'll be happy to oblige. I'm reviewing Cherry Poppin' Daddies at the moment, but I'll do yours next. Brianboulton (talk) 15:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll go for merciless, but humourless? Nah. Pity the poor ponies though... Ealdgyth - Talk 15:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, well...the ponies are taking a rest, but the dogs will soon be barking. Nansen's Fram Expedition is just over the horizon and is expected to arrive at PR soon. So, sharpen your knives..." Brianboulton (talk) 20:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

		The Reviewers Award
		Thank you so much for the excellent peer review on Remain in Light and all the work you do there and at FAC (including the A Weekend in the City review last month). Top stuff. RB88 (T) 12:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Brianboulton (talk) 21:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Churchill

Brilliant; I'll include 1 and 3 (reliable sources ftw when you're dealing with potential FACs) and dig out my two Churchill biographies when I'm back in London. Thanks for all your work on the peer review :). Ironholds (talk) 22:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Hang on, a "visitors guide" published in 08? Do you have a copy of that? I could use it to expand the coverage of the Inn in the 20th century. Ironholds (talk) 12:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I found it online, in a PDF file. Google "Gray's Inn Visitor's Guide", and it's the sixth or seventh item listed. The full text is of about 200 pages, of which 40 or 50 deal with Gray's Inn. Could be a useful source. Brianboulton (talk) 14:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Brilliant. When the latest source is from 1920 you have a serious problem getting to FA. That'll be incredibly helpful, thanks mate :). Ironholds (talk) 18:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Swaminarayan PR

Mea culpa about this. Didn't realize that PR pages were transcluded onto a main page. Abecedare (talk) 23:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Mea culpa as well - I of all people should not have made that mistake - sorry and thanks for fixing it. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a Wikipedia first - I've actually fixed something! Brianboulton (talk) 08:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

L'incoronazione di Poppea

Hi, Brain. In case you aren't watching the Opera Project talk page message (which I'm about to archive)[2]...

To complement your planned work on Poppea, we've made improvement on Monteverdi's L'Orfeo, L'Arianna. and Il ritorno d'Ulisse in patria the October Opera of the Month collaboration along with requested articles on Monteverdi role creators, including the first Nerone, Baldassarre Ferri. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 10:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

That's good. I hope to start the detailed work on Poppea later this month (still collecting sources at the moment), with a view to its being ready for review early in November. Brianboulton (talk) 11:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Last map questions

Thanks for the PR notice - I had seen it on the article's talk page too. The last new map will replace the old map File:Nansen06ds.jpg of the overall journey. What places if any do you want labeled? What colors do you want for the various lines / voyages. Assume there will be at least three different colored lines:

1. Voyage of the Fram in open water - would one color suffice here, or would this be two colors, one before the drift and one after?)
2. Voyage / drift of the Fram in the ice
3. Sledge / kayak voyage of Nansen and Johansen from the Fram north then to Cape Flora. Would a different color be needed for their return by ship to Norway?

That is at least three and possibly five colors needed.

So the problem with the last map is that the old map File:Nansen06ds.jpg does not really line up with other maps I can find for a base map. The best base map is File:Map of Russian Subjects old.png - I would erase the borders and change the colors, plus have to add Spitsbergen. That is not really a problem. The problem is adding latitude / logitude would be fairly difficult. Does this seem like an OK map?

Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm replying here to keep the discussion in one place. The Russian map looks fine for a base, though it's not absolutely clear if it stretches to the pole. Can you extend, so that the pole can be indicated at the top of our map?

• I think five colours will be needed: two for Fram in open water, one for Fram in the ice, one for Nansen & Johansen's journey from the ship via Farthest North to Cape Flora, one for Nansen & Johansen's return to Vardo.
• I don't think that latitude and longitude lines really matter. The excellent Shackleton map (this one) which I believe you and Finetooth prepared some while back doesn't have them (and has EIGHT colours!). We can note a few critical coordinates, e.g. latitude for Fram entering the ice, Nansen's farthest north, ship's farthest north. We'll need to discuss other labelling, too. Brianboulton (talk) 22:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, five colors for the lines it is. I can add the North Pole without too much trouble. I will make the base map and upload it for approval before adding labels. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The base map is done and I added the initial voyage of the Fram in red (above). Does it look OK? I am not 100% sure where the ice journey begins (detail on the old map scan is not great). Does this look right? I thought a dark blue for the drift in the ice, perhaps orange for the Fram's return to Norway by sea. Green for Nansen and Johansen's ice journey and purple or pink for their sea return from Cape Flora. Does this sound OK? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

PS The old map shows the ice with white - do you want something like that too? If so would probably have to color the land a different color. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Good colour choices, and the outline map looks great. If we show the ice white, won't it tend to look like land, unless the dividing line between blue and white was soft? I'd really need to look at it, but we didn't distinguish the ice on the Shackleton map, nor on the one you did for New South Greenland, so maybe it's unimportant. It may be a matter best left to your judgement. Brianboulton (talk) 16:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I would just as soon not show the ice either (more work and not as clear what the extent of the ice was then), so I am fine with the map as is. Assume you want Vardø, Tromsø, Spitsbergen, Franz Josef Land, North Pole, and New Siberian Islands labeled. Not sure what else - too many labels and the map will be too crowded. Novaya Zemlya? Kara Sea? Laptev Sea? Yenisei River? Olenyok River? Taimyr Peninsula? Cape Chelyuskin? (apologies for spelling errors). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

PS I did not work on the excellent Shackleton map - keep meaning to tell you and forgetting. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The Shackleton map was Finetooth's, but I'm sure you inspired it. Anyhow, I suppose if somewhere in named in the text, it ought to be on the map. How would the map look with all the names you list added (plus "Norway" and "Siberia")? Don't want to press the point, but the Shackleton map has 20 labels and doesn't look cluttered. Brianboulton (talk) 18:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, I uploaded a new version with all the labels and all the sea journey lines. Still have to do the ice journey lines. I added all the names above, plus Arctic Ocean and North Pole. Rereading the article I see I did not add Sverdrup Island either. How does this look? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It looks wonderful. Two points: could Tromso and Vardo have coastline dots? And Sverdrup Island is exactly where the "m" in Nova Zemlya is at the moment. It's in a cluttered part of the map, so is there any chance we can move the "Novaya Zemlya" label to west, and slip Sverdrup Island into place? Brianboulton (talk) 20:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I can move the Novaya Z label west and add Sverdrup Island (found it was the wrong link and fixed that and another in the article in the process). I also need to add the Barents Sea label. The ice lines will take me longer. Do you also want a label for the Farthest North? I will be busy in real life for the next several hours. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

There should be a label for farthest north. Please take your time over this and the remaining map features. I want to get more comments at PR on the text, so the article isn't going anywhere for a while. Brianboulton (talk) 21:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

(Out) OK< should finish it over the next few days. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Got it done and was bold and added it to the article - how does it look? I will be glad to make any changes needed. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

It looks every bit as good as I had hoped. Some very minor suggestions:-

• The orange line (Spitsbergen to Tromso) is not clearly distinguishable from the red line. Would it be possible to make the orange line yellow?
• Novaya Zemlya is two islands, separated by a narrow channel. Could this be indicated by a short dividing line?
• We could save a little bit of label clutter by shortening Sverdrup Island to Sverdrup I., and New Siberian Islands to New Siberian Is.(Perhaps less important names, e.g. the rivers, the cape, Novaya Zemlya and Sverdrup I. could be in a smaller typeface?)
• Perhaps the Farthest North label should be replaced by te coordinate, thus emphasising the proximity of this point to the pole.

I have added alt text. Overall the map is a great piece of work. Brianboulton (talk) 09:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the alt text, kind words , and suggestions. I have tweaked the map accordingly and uploaded it - is it better? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Magnificent. As an experiment I have made the map the lead image, transferring "Fram leaving Bergen" to the Voyage section. What do you think? Brianboulton (talk) 14:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

PS see also the Franz Josef Land note, below, which I inadvertently posted to my own talkpage instead of yours! Brianboulton (talk) 14:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Answered below (fixed that). I like the map at the top, but am not impartial ;-) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16