Talk:Battle of Öland

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 09:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Comments on fleeing ships

Four ships from Creutz' and Uggla's squadron immediately fled when they saw that the flagship was lost.

Presume author means 'fleet' rather than 'squadron'.....or does he/she? Could mean 4 each from their two separate squadrons..... I don't know! In any case, 4 (or 8?) seems almost too precise......is it from the comission's report? Well, I went ahead and changed it to:

Several ships immediately fled when they saw that the flagship was lost.

˜˜˜˜ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomseattle (talk • contribs) 12:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the copyedit, Tomseattle. It did much to improve some of my iffier sentences. :-)

As for the number of ships, I was quoting an exact figure, so I reverted that particular edit. As far as I recall, Zettersten listed the names of the ships, but I felt that was too detailed for the article. Zettersten based his work primarily on navy archives, so he's considered quite reliable when it comes to details like that. And when you think about it, four ships represents a lot of men and firepower, so it's really not that much different than saying that a certain number of companies or battalions in a land battle fled the scene.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Öland/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tomobe03 (talk · contribs) 09:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll get to this review shortly.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• No disambiguation links (no action required)
• No broken links (no action required)
• There are a couple of duplicate links in the article, and they should be removed per WP:OVERLINK. Those are: Swedish Pomerania, and Scania.
• Referencing seems to be in order. (no action required)
• Images are properly licensed and their captions appear to be fine, except possibly one: A quick scan of the article body text gives no indication about assertions made in the caption of the "Svenska flottans seglingsordning 1675.jpg". I'll re-read the article carefully once more, but unless such an assertion is backed up by a reference in the article body prose, an additional reference is needed in the caption itself.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I de-linked some Scania-links, but I left a pair of duplicates. I think they're warranted as being helful.
  • Image is now sourced.

  I'm interested in trying to take this to FAC as the next step. If you have any suggestions on improvements that might be required for FA-status, I'd be happy to hear them.

  Peter ^Isotalo 15:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll resume this tomorrow. Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Prose and MOS:

• I'll fix few issues as I go through the prose - please review the changes and revert if necessary.
• There are two date formats employed by the article - DMY and MDY: For instance there's "2 September", and "June 29". Please select one and apply it consistently throughout the article.
• There are few phrases such as "Hans Clerck of Solen went through the process unscathed..." in the article. I assume that means that Clerck was the captain of Solen, but I'm simply not sure. I think this type of structure XY of Z needs clarification.
• Speaking of Clerck, the prose says that "[he] was promoted by the King before the commission even presented its verdict." This is no particular dealbreaker, but it would be better to indicate what was the promotion eg: "[he] was promoted an Admiral (or whatever else) by the King..."

Referencing:

• Is there any source used to back up information on composition of the 2nd and the 3rd squadrons the fleets?

This concludes my remarks regarding this GAN. There are few unclear bits of prose, a date format issue and a referencing question regarding composition of the fleets. Cheers.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Before taking the article to FAC, I'd definitely suggest submitting it to Military History A-class review at WP:MHR.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:45, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I believe this[1] should solve your concerns. I even managed to figure what Clerck was promoted to.

The composition of all squadrons all comes from the same sources. I moved the note up to the introductory sentence to clarify this.

Thank you very much for your review, and the suggestion about A-class review. Hadn't thought of that as an option at all.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. All clear now, so passing GAN. Congratualtions!--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:36, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Reference callout consistency

• Some of the short-form (and other "non-sentence") reference callouts are terminated with a full stop (e.g. Glete (1993), pp. 173–178.) and others (including at least one sentence, "Denmark and Sweden still used the Julian calendar; the Dutch Republic had switched to the Gregorian in 1582–83" are not. I don't really mind which way this is done (although I clearly preferred the full stops for everything) but please make sure that the article is consistent.
• "Sjöblom (2003), pp. 225–226;" is terminated with a semicolon which is incorrect either way round.

Thanks for correcting these points, which ever way you prefer. --Mirokado (talk) 01:15, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

D'oh. Thanks for pointing that out. I really only use punctuation for actual sentences in notes (as far as I know). And I never use separate commentary notes, so I have no ambitions to employ absolute period/no period consistency.

Peter ^Isotalo 01:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, they are OK now. --Mirokado (talk) 01:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)