This is a very absorbing article, well written and researched. My comments below are all relatively minor suggestions for further improvement.

• Article title: It's very long and clumsy. I think that either "Franklin Expedition 1845", or "Lost Franklin Expedition", would be better. (I note that at present "Lost Expedition" links to the Sir John Franklin article)
• Lead
  • "Franklin had also served..." rather than "Franklin also served..."
  • "The entire crew, including Franklin and 128 others..." As you've said "entire" you don't need "including". Also, "crew" suggests a single ship's company. How about: "The entire expedition complement, Franklin and 128 men..."?
  • Do you need to specify British Admiralty, or would just Admiralty do?
  • The word expedition occurs three times in the penultimate sentence of the second paragraph. Perhaps you could reword?
• Background
  • You should link this first mention of Lancaster Sound - it's linked later on, but it should be here.
  • Is it necessary to introduce "leagues" as distances? Kms and miles are surely enough.
• Command
  • I assume that citation No 5 covers the rejections of Fitzjames, Back and Crozier as well as the appointment of Franklin. I don't like "common-born" - perhaps you mean "of humble birth" Sounds better to me - but that's a personal view.
  • Before saying who commanded HMS Erebus and HMS Terror, you should have stated previously that this was a two-ship expedition.
• Ships, crew, provisions
  • The second sentence is properly two. Suggest full stop after "..Birmingham Railway", then "They enabled.."
  • "Who", not "and", after Goldner
  • Is the implication that Fitzjames's selection of his inexperienced pals was a contributory factor to the disaster? If so, this should be indicated somewhere, later in the text, otherwise this sentence serves no purpose.
  • I think the sentence beginning "Aside from Franklin.." would be better placed as the second sentence in this paragraph, to make it flow more logically.
• Lost
  • What is "the next day" that they planned to begin walking? The next day after what?
  • The last sentence of the section has some clumsy and inappropriate phrasing, such as "here and there". Can you reword/restructure it?
• Early Searches
• Some mild copyediting issues in this section: Drop comma after "expedition" in first line, suggest insert "along with" before members of Parliament. Second para very clumsy with repeated phrases. I'll have a go at this if you like, to see what you think. Also, "Woolrich" in the last line - is this "Woolwich"?
• Overland Searches
  • You refer to the "Franklin party". You've usually called it the Franklin Expedition - "party" suggests a smaller group within an expedition, e.g. a "shore party". Also, can you be consistent with the capitalisation of "e" in expedition?
  • When was "Lake Franklin" named? Was it coincidentally called that already, or was it named after Franklin?
• King William Island
  • Reference to "Franklin crew". Is this referring to the whole expedition?
• Beechey Islands
  • I presume should read "elevated lead level" not "elevated lead"
• Aftermath
  • I had my biggest problem with this section. To me it struck a wrong, almost trivial note, after the sombre but gripping story. "Aftermath" is probably the wrong title - you probably wouldn't describe the hundreds of films, books, songs etc about the Second World War as the "aftermath" of that war. Could I ask you to think about this section, possibly shorten it a bit, and maybe rename it?

Much work has obviously gone into this article. The images and general presentation are excellent. There is no doubt in my mind, first that there is a potential Good Article here, secondly that it could go further. Brianboulton (talk) 00:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks, Brianboulton, for your thoughtful and careful feedback on this article. I feel that nearly all of your stylistic and copyediting recommendations are good ones, and we'll work to implement them. Only one off note: there is only one Beechey Island, not sure what you meant about islands?

About the various substantive changes you mention -- As to the Aftermath section, I respectfully disagree. In fact, oddly enough, the aftermath of the Franklin expedition -- if one includes the various searches, the tremendous international interest, and the lasting impact upon subjects as various as Inuit history and Canadian culture, this "aftermath" is far more significant than the expedition itself. I think. On the other hand, perhaps the word "Aftermath" itself is not the right one -- perhaps "Cultural significance", "Historical signficance", or "Legacy" might be better? About the larger article title, this is a tough one; "Franklin's Last Expedition" is a common way of describing it, and even "Franklin Expedition" (though it was only one of several he led). Clevelander96 (talk) 01:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

"Beechey Islands" (plural) was a typo for which I apologise. As to article title, "Franklin Expedition 1845", or "Franklin's Lost Expedition" (with or without the 1845) would be specific enough, and either is far preferable to the present marathon - by the time I've typed it in I'm too tired to read the article. Strongly recommend you adopt one of these shorter alternatives, or something similar.

I accept your rationale for the last section, and I think "Cultural legacy" would be an appropriate title. I don't think the section would lose anything by being a little shorter, but I'll leave that to you. However my real worry, as I hinted earlier, is the disjunction (change of mood) between this section and what has gone before. As well as a cultural legacy there was an historical legacy - the virtual ending of Royal Navy involvement in Arctic/Antarctic exploration. Prior to the Franklin Expedition the navy had embraced polar exploration, north and south, as its main peacetime activity, hence the large number of naval expeditions, involving John Ross, James Clark Ross, Franklin and others, since the Napoleonic Wars. The Franklin Expedition and its long aftermath (that word again!) formed an historical watershed. Only one more official naval expedition, that of George Nares in 1875, was ever sent; those of Captain Scott to Antarctica in the 20th century, although Admiralty-approved, were not formal naval expeditions. If you can insert a short section before "Cultural legacy", perhaps entitled "Historical legacy", then I think the problem of disjunction is resolved. I'm sure you'll find appropriate citations from your substantial bibliography, but I'll provide some if you want. Brianboulton (talk) 14:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

My two cents. I want to say thank you to User:Brianboulton for the excellent critique and good advice. I've made many of the suggested minor changes, and I plan to finish those later today. I agree entirely about the article title, which I have never liked even though I created the monster. I have never changed an article title before, so I must do a bit of research to see how it is done. I think "Franklin's Last Expedition" would suffice, though any of the other short options would be OK with me. As for "Aftermath," yes, it is also not good and also my doing. "Cultural legacy" is better, and I agree that a short "Historical legacy" section just above it makes good sense and would tie things together nicely. User:Clevelander96 is the content expert on this project, and perhaps he would be willing to create such a section. Finetooth (talk) 16:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. I think I see how to change the title and then check for double redirects and fix them. I want to do this carefully and get it right. It appears to me that the Manual of Style calls for the title to be "Franklin's last expedition" (lower case on the second two words) rather than "Franklin's Last Expedition" since the new title would be a description rather than a formal name. I see that the "Ross Sea Party" article title was changed to "Ross Sea party", and I don't want to force us to make another title change to fix a case problem later. Is "Franklin's last expedition" correct? Finetooth (talk) 20:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you are correct, in that only Franklin should be capitalized in the article title. Clevelander96 (talk) 21:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

In MoS terms Franklin's last expedition is correct. To me, however, the most memorable point about the expedition is that it was "lost", not that it was Franklin's last. So if we're going to have a descriptive title I suggest "lost" rather than "last". Put it this way: if I saw a magazine article called "Franklin's lost expedition" I'd know immediately what it was about, and I'd read it. If I saw "Franklin's last expedition" it wouldn't resonate - it might be about some other Franklin, Benjamin perhaps. See what I mean? Choose title with care. Brianboulton (talk) 21:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Point well taken, I quite prefer lost myself, for those very reasons. Clevelander96 (talk) 21:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both. This is exactly the feedback I was hoping for. I will change the title to "Franklin's lost expedition". Finetooth (talk) 22:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the title and manually fixed the single redirects from about 30 article pages and talk pages. I did not fix the redirects from user talk pages or from log pages. I found no double redirects, so I think everything is technically OK. In addition, I've taken all of Brian's suggestions to heart, and I believed I've fixed everything he mentioned. Finetooth (talk) 23:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm almost through. I agree that you have addressed nearly all my concerns, and I hope you agree the article has benefitted. I've done three tiny copyedits - you won't find them unless you check the edit history - because it was easier to fix them myself than ask you to do it. My remaining concerns are:-

• You haven't dealt with my point that you should clarify that this was a two-ship expedition, with HMS Erebus and HMS Terror, before simply naming the ships' commanders. Could you not open your Command section with the sentence: "The expedition was to consist of two ships, HMS Erebus and HMS Terror, each of which had seen Antarctic service with James Clark Ross" - or something like that. That would clarify things.

Response: I didn't ignore you on this point but inserted only two or three words of explanation in the sentence: "Reluctantly, Barrow settled on the 59-year-old Franklin to lead the two-ship expedition." However, I like your fix better, and I have replaced mine with yours. Finetooth (talk) 17:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• I asked you to clarify the naming of "Lake Franklin". Now I can't find it in the text. Have you removed it, or did I imagine it in the first place?

Response: I removed it. An editor who has apparently since disappeared inserted it, citing a source I have not seen. I think it highly likely that the lake was named for Franklin by others after his death, but this is merely my best guess. I have searched briefly for support for this guess but found none and none to contradict it. In the context of this article, the lake seemed unimportant and unnecessary to mention; thus I erased it. Your question is a good one though, and my curiosity may lead me to search some more. Finetooth (talk) 17:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The Geographical Names server of Canada is the best resource; you can search it here. It provides the origin only of certain features, and alas, Lake Franklin is not one of them. I suspect your best guess is likely to be accurate, but absent some citation, let's leave the lake off for now. Clevelander96 (talk) 17:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• I'm glad to see the Historical legacy section, but it needs a little attention. For clarification you should insert the words "by the various search parties" after "mapping". Also, you dilute the historical legacy aspect by making no mention of the Navy. I suggest you say: "quelled the Admiralty's appetite", replace "furthest north" with North Pole, and replace "the end of the last significant Arctic expedition ever dispatched by the British Government" with "the end of the Royal Navy's historical involvement in Arctic exploration". You might also consider dividing this over-long central sentence. The last sentence should go. You shouldn't describe Amundsen as "a Norwegian". I wonder, too, what "exploits" of Franklin inspired Amundsen? Also, as stated re Nares, British naval expeditions to the north had ceased long before 1903-05. The term "heroic age" is in my experience used in relation to the Antarctic, not the Arctic. So, I advise drop this sentence altogether - it's more trouble than its worth.
• Finally, I'm not making an issue of this and it won't affect GA. But I still feel that you could make the necessary points concerning the importance of a cultural legacy by citing around half the examples you have at present, thereby shortening the section to a length more appropriate to the article's structure. That's just a thought for you.

Response: I agree that the "Cultural legacy" section could make its main points just as well with half as many examples. I have not mentioned this before, but I also think the "Scientific expeditions" section should be compressed in order to maintain flow and balance throughout the article. However, I don't own the page, and we may have reached an editorial impasse on at least some of these matters. Finetooth (talk) 17:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the Cultural legacy section is fine as it is -- rather than trimming the number of examples, I would rather see it grow by adding additional details on the examples given. After all, one way to establish that there is a legacy is to show how many things (novels, films, artworks) have indeed been influenced. With the scientific expeditions section, I agree we could potentially work that into one section rather than the brief subsections, but again would like to see the level of detail preserved, as this seems to me one of the entry's best assets. Clevelander96 (talk) 18:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It's been a pleasure working on this article, one of the most interesting I've read. Brianboulton (talk) 12:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Brianboulton, for your latest comments and notes. I've revised the Historical legacy" section along the lines you've indicated. I modified the sentence about Amundsen slightly and dropped the reference to the "heroic age," but I do still believe he should be mentioned as his achievement marks the end of the efforts of which Franklin's lost expedition was part. Clevelander96 (talk) 15:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I've passed the article for GA. The formalities will happen shortly - I don't have time tonight to write the review report etc, but I thought I'd let you know. Congratulations on a great article. Brianboulton (talk) 23:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much -- it has been great working with you on this article! Clevelander96 (talk) 00:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you from me too. I know how much time and effort goes into these reviews, and I appreciate it. Finetooth (talk) 04:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

This article is well-written and presented, thoroughly researched and without any apparent NPOV or MOS issues. The images are well-chosen and well deployed, and there do not seem to be any copyright infringements. All the on-line links appear to be working.

As a result of my discussions with the editors, numerous minor improvements were incorporated into the article, these being mainly questions of phraseology, tautologies, omissions of relevant fact, obscure wording and other points of detail. The two most significant issues that were resolved were the adoption of a more manageable article title than that originally chosen, and the introduction of a short "Historical legacy" section, which I thought was necessary to the overall coherence of the article.

I expressed the view to the editors that the "Cultural legacy" section could be shortened by citing fewer examples, without any loss to its significance within the article. The editors made their case for retaining the section in full. I did not feel that this was a critical GA issue, and did not press for my view to be adopted. If the article goes to peer review, I will be interested to see what others think.

All in all I found the article interesting, informative, and fully in accordance with GA criteria, and have accordingly passed it for GA. Brianboulton (talk) 11:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)