G'day Simongraham, is this your first Swedish ship at GAN? I don't remember having seen one of yours before. I have a few suggestions and comments for you:
expand the lead so it is a better summary of the body. For example, I suggest putting the main battery, max belt thickness and top speed in the lead, along with a sentence each on her early service history and WWI service including mentioning the Invasion of Åland.
Suggest a bit of a restructure/reordering, as follows: Consolidate the sections and subsections into two sections, "Design" and "Service history" (this is pretty much the gold standard for ship articles, with subsections where necessary (not necessary here given the amount of material involved, see
French cruiser Troude for an example of a similarly-sized ship article with just the two sections). The single para subsections break up the flow. Make the current Construction#Background section the first para of the Design section (as this is chronologically where it fits), inserting "Oscar II was designed as a modernised and slightly larger version of the Äran class." after "the Naval Secretary". Then follow this with the rest of the current Design section, dropping the subsection headings. Then start the Service history section with the content of the Construction#Launch subsection, and follow with the rest of the contents, again dropping the subsection headings. Obviously happy to discuss this, but will just pause the review here while we sort it out.
Thank you for your really helpful comments. This is my first GAN so I really appreciate you taking the time. I have made edits which I hope follow your very useful suggestions. I look forward to further responses.
simongraham (
talk)
23:42, 14 June 2020 (UTC)reply
No worries, I've reviewed quite a few warship GANs by two of
Milhist's most prolific and expert warship article writers
Sturmvogel 66 and
Parsecboy, and have got every class and ship of the
Royal Yugoslav Navy to GA at least myself so hopefully my suggestions will be improvements. It is great to see someone working on Swedish ships, they are quite under-represented in GA and above articles (we only have six Swedish ship GAs from a navy that is 500 years old, compared to 103 Austro-Hungarian ones from a navy that only existed for 130 years...). If you ever have questions about ship articles, the two editors I've linked above would be happy to help you, as would I. You'd also be very welcome if you wanted to join Milhist, you can do so
here. Back to this article:
Lead
link main battery, flagship and Hulk (ship type)
suggest using the commissioning rather than launching date in the lead and link ship commissioning
not sure about the initial capital on Archipelago on "Swedish Archipelago" there is no article to link to that I can find which might confirm it as a proper name
"The commission proposed three solutions:" needs a citation that covers the table, I find putting it immediately after the colon works best
in the table, suggest using commas to subdivide large numbers rather than spaces, and instead of x use × (which is available in the Wiki markup option in the edit screen). I have adjusted the first line for you
in the table, convert the calibre of the main guns on the first line (as you've done in the lead), also knots in the first line with lk=in to link knots, and for the costs of the first solution use {{SEK|7762000|link=yes}} which produces 7,762,000
kr, and adjust the second and third ones to match, and the final one in the last para of the article
for Swedish parliament, link Riksdag
"Äran-class coastal defence ships" and link coastal defence ship
for the first displacement figure, add lk=on to link both long tons and tons in the conversion
we don't start sentences with arabic numerals per
MOS:NUMNOTES, so suggest "She was 95.6 m (314 ft) long"
to get rid of the 0 inches in the draught conversion, change from ftin to ft and add |sigfig=2 to the conversion (same in the infobox)
link Naval rating
"A command staff of nine officers could also be carried" doesn't correlate to "9 flag officers" in the infobox. A
flag officer is a naval officer of at least commodore (often rear admiral, depending on the country) rank. If operating as a flagship, the nine would have included officers of various ranks to support the flag officer aboard. In the infobox suggest "Complement: 326 (335 as a flagship)"
link Compound steam engine#Multiple expansion engines
drop the |km/h from the range speeds to get mi as well
link nmi via |lk=in, and drop the |km to get mi as well
suggest "The
main battery of Oscar II consisted of a pair of
Bofors 210 mm (8.3 in) K/44 M1898 guns mounted in individual
turrets fore and aft on the Glossary of nautical terms#C|centreline]]. Designed in 1898, they were similar to the guns mounted in the earlier Äran class. The guns fired 276 lb (125 kg) shells at a muzzle velocity of 750 m (2,460 ft) per second and a
rate of fire of two shells per minute.[9] Each gun was mounted singly on the centreline, one forward and the other aft." and add a citation for the centreline bit, if not in the existing citation.
"on the
armoured cruiser Fylgia", and put the mounting locs ahead of the characteristics of the ammo
A thousand thank yous. This is really helpful. It would be an unexpected and even greater honour if we could raise this article to be able to be nominated for WP:MHR. I have tried to address everything, but please tell me if there is anything else needed.
simongraham (
talk)
22:49, 19 June 2020 (UTC)reply
No worries, I found it one of the hardest areas of WP to get the hang of, and frankly one of the most frustrating... I'll walk you through it. First up, we need a link to a current web page that shows the first and third pics. And we need some more information about the publication of the second one (the diagram). In that case, it appears that it may have been published in a source called Nordisk familjebok, which appears to be some sort of Swedish encyclopedia. We need to know the earliest edition it which the diagram was published. The good thing is that, according to that article, it has been fully digitised and is available via Project Runeberg at Linköping University. Once you've found the answers to these questions, I'll move on to next steps. Cheers,
Peacemaker67 (
click to talk to me)
08:00, 22 June 2020 (UTC)reply
OK, so for the first and third ones, I think you could use {{PD-Sweden-photo}} as the Swedish licence, but it still needs a US PD tag because it is from Sweden and Commons holds the image files on a US server. This is where it gets sticky. US PD tags generally require information about when the image was published, and as far as I can see, we don't know if these images were ever published before being placed online (or even when they were placed online, for that matter). So I think unless you can find evidence that they were actually published in a book or journal etc, we might have to look at alternatives. But I'm going to bring in
Nikkimaria here, as she is my go-to on this stuff, and might be able to see a way we could use the Marinmuseum images given they have the PD mark. What do you think, Nikkimaria?
Peacemaker67 (
click to talk to me)
04:51, 23 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Thanks Nikkimaria. Failing that, drop them both and use
this one from NHHC with their licensing tag per File:Austro-Hungarian torpedo boat 81T NH 87683.tif. I know it is not as good, but it is better than no pic at all. With the second one (the diagram), if that volume was was published in 1914, which appears to be the case, then you could use {{PD-US-expired}} and that one will be ok.
Peacemaker67 (
click to talk to me)
03:16, 24 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Thank you. I have set the PD tag and refined the source location on the diagram. The web pages on the Marinmuseum website with the images point here for their licensing:
[4]. Can we use this please?
simongraham (
talk)
I've been in touch with the Marinmuseum about the image and they have kindly responded that unfortunately they don't know who the photographer was or when it was taken. "The picture is dated after 1939/40 because of some modifications of the vessel from this year. We have no indications or records if or when it was published." As an alternative, there are other images from
Sjöhistoriska Museet of a postcard of the ship in its original configuration. One image is
here. The notes say that the photograph was taken by Karl Emil Karlsson (1864–1937). It has the link to
Creative Commons for licensing.
Archive.org also has some images from the same institution, including
IV558 from 1940. Again, the
metadata claims PD licensing. Would either or both of these be good replacements please?
simongraham (
talk)
23:12, 2 July 2020 (UTC)reply
OK, that means the Marinmuseum ones can't be used. The postcard is great, because it is presumed published when it was created, as postcards were offered for sale at that time. The Karlsson postcard could use {{PD-old-70}} for Sweden and {{PD-US-expired}} for the US. The archive.org one doesn't provide any publication details, so it can't be used because no US PD tag will fit. So, I suggest replacing the infobox image with the postcard, and deleting the other Marinmuseum one and I think we are done here.
Peacemaker67 (
click to talk to me)
04:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)reply
This should now be done. Thank you for your help with this. Not only has this taught me a lot about editing on Wikipedia, I have learnt a lot more about images on Wikimedia Commons too.
simongraham (
talk)
22:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)reply
No worries. I appreciate this has been a drawn-out process, but I am very glad you have learnt a bit from it. This is now easily GA, and I encourage you to nominate it for Milhist A-Class Review at
WP:MHR, where you will get further feedback for improvements. This article is well-written, verifiable using reliable sources, covers the subject well, is neutral and stable, contains no plagiarism, and is illustrated by acceptably licensed images with appropriate captions. Passing.
Peacemaker67 (
click to talk to me)
01:18, 4 July 2020 (UTC)reply
G'day Simongraham, is this your first Swedish ship at GAN? I don't remember having seen one of yours before. I have a few suggestions and comments for you:
expand the lead so it is a better summary of the body. For example, I suggest putting the main battery, max belt thickness and top speed in the lead, along with a sentence each on her early service history and WWI service including mentioning the Invasion of Åland.
Suggest a bit of a restructure/reordering, as follows: Consolidate the sections and subsections into two sections, "Design" and "Service history" (this is pretty much the gold standard for ship articles, with subsections where necessary (not necessary here given the amount of material involved, see
French cruiser Troude for an example of a similarly-sized ship article with just the two sections). The single para subsections break up the flow. Make the current Construction#Background section the first para of the Design section (as this is chronologically where it fits), inserting "Oscar II was designed as a modernised and slightly larger version of the Äran class." after "the Naval Secretary". Then follow this with the rest of the current Design section, dropping the subsection headings. Then start the Service history section with the content of the Construction#Launch subsection, and follow with the rest of the contents, again dropping the subsection headings. Obviously happy to discuss this, but will just pause the review here while we sort it out.
Thank you for your really helpful comments. This is my first GAN so I really appreciate you taking the time. I have made edits which I hope follow your very useful suggestions. I look forward to further responses.
simongraham (
talk)
23:42, 14 June 2020 (UTC)reply
No worries, I've reviewed quite a few warship GANs by two of
Milhist's most prolific and expert warship article writers
Sturmvogel 66 and
Parsecboy, and have got every class and ship of the
Royal Yugoslav Navy to GA at least myself so hopefully my suggestions will be improvements. It is great to see someone working on Swedish ships, they are quite under-represented in GA and above articles (we only have six Swedish ship GAs from a navy that is 500 years old, compared to 103 Austro-Hungarian ones from a navy that only existed for 130 years...). If you ever have questions about ship articles, the two editors I've linked above would be happy to help you, as would I. You'd also be very welcome if you wanted to join Milhist, you can do so
here. Back to this article:
Lead
link main battery, flagship and Hulk (ship type)
suggest using the commissioning rather than launching date in the lead and link ship commissioning
not sure about the initial capital on Archipelago on "Swedish Archipelago" there is no article to link to that I can find which might confirm it as a proper name
"The commission proposed three solutions:" needs a citation that covers the table, I find putting it immediately after the colon works best
in the table, suggest using commas to subdivide large numbers rather than spaces, and instead of x use × (which is available in the Wiki markup option in the edit screen). I have adjusted the first line for you
in the table, convert the calibre of the main guns on the first line (as you've done in the lead), also knots in the first line with lk=in to link knots, and for the costs of the first solution use {{SEK|7762000|link=yes}} which produces 7,762,000
kr, and adjust the second and third ones to match, and the final one in the last para of the article
for Swedish parliament, link Riksdag
"Äran-class coastal defence ships" and link coastal defence ship
for the first displacement figure, add lk=on to link both long tons and tons in the conversion
we don't start sentences with arabic numerals per
MOS:NUMNOTES, so suggest "She was 95.6 m (314 ft) long"
to get rid of the 0 inches in the draught conversion, change from ftin to ft and add |sigfig=2 to the conversion (same in the infobox)
link Naval rating
"A command staff of nine officers could also be carried" doesn't correlate to "9 flag officers" in the infobox. A
flag officer is a naval officer of at least commodore (often rear admiral, depending on the country) rank. If operating as a flagship, the nine would have included officers of various ranks to support the flag officer aboard. In the infobox suggest "Complement: 326 (335 as a flagship)"
link Compound steam engine#Multiple expansion engines
drop the |km/h from the range speeds to get mi as well
link nmi via |lk=in, and drop the |km to get mi as well
suggest "The
main battery of Oscar II consisted of a pair of
Bofors 210 mm (8.3 in) K/44 M1898 guns mounted in individual
turrets fore and aft on the Glossary of nautical terms#C|centreline]]. Designed in 1898, they were similar to the guns mounted in the earlier Äran class. The guns fired 276 lb (125 kg) shells at a muzzle velocity of 750 m (2,460 ft) per second and a
rate of fire of two shells per minute.[9] Each gun was mounted singly on the centreline, one forward and the other aft." and add a citation for the centreline bit, if not in the existing citation.
"on the
armoured cruiser Fylgia", and put the mounting locs ahead of the characteristics of the ammo
A thousand thank yous. This is really helpful. It would be an unexpected and even greater honour if we could raise this article to be able to be nominated for WP:MHR. I have tried to address everything, but please tell me if there is anything else needed.
simongraham (
talk)
22:49, 19 June 2020 (UTC)reply
No worries, I found it one of the hardest areas of WP to get the hang of, and frankly one of the most frustrating... I'll walk you through it. First up, we need a link to a current web page that shows the first and third pics. And we need some more information about the publication of the second one (the diagram). In that case, it appears that it may have been published in a source called Nordisk familjebok, which appears to be some sort of Swedish encyclopedia. We need to know the earliest edition it which the diagram was published. The good thing is that, according to that article, it has been fully digitised and is available via Project Runeberg at Linköping University. Once you've found the answers to these questions, I'll move on to next steps. Cheers,
Peacemaker67 (
click to talk to me)
08:00, 22 June 2020 (UTC)reply
OK, so for the first and third ones, I think you could use {{PD-Sweden-photo}} as the Swedish licence, but it still needs a US PD tag because it is from Sweden and Commons holds the image files on a US server. This is where it gets sticky. US PD tags generally require information about when the image was published, and as far as I can see, we don't know if these images were ever published before being placed online (or even when they were placed online, for that matter). So I think unless you can find evidence that they were actually published in a book or journal etc, we might have to look at alternatives. But I'm going to bring in
Nikkimaria here, as she is my go-to on this stuff, and might be able to see a way we could use the Marinmuseum images given they have the PD mark. What do you think, Nikkimaria?
Peacemaker67 (
click to talk to me)
04:51, 23 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Thanks Nikkimaria. Failing that, drop them both and use
this one from NHHC with their licensing tag per File:Austro-Hungarian torpedo boat 81T NH 87683.tif. I know it is not as good, but it is better than no pic at all. With the second one (the diagram), if that volume was was published in 1914, which appears to be the case, then you could use {{PD-US-expired}} and that one will be ok.
Peacemaker67 (
click to talk to me)
03:16, 24 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Thank you. I have set the PD tag and refined the source location on the diagram. The web pages on the Marinmuseum website with the images point here for their licensing:
[4]. Can we use this please?
simongraham (
talk)
I've been in touch with the Marinmuseum about the image and they have kindly responded that unfortunately they don't know who the photographer was or when it was taken. "The picture is dated after 1939/40 because of some modifications of the vessel from this year. We have no indications or records if or when it was published." As an alternative, there are other images from
Sjöhistoriska Museet of a postcard of the ship in its original configuration. One image is
here. The notes say that the photograph was taken by Karl Emil Karlsson (1864–1937). It has the link to
Creative Commons for licensing.
Archive.org also has some images from the same institution, including
IV558 from 1940. Again, the
metadata claims PD licensing. Would either or both of these be good replacements please?
simongraham (
talk)
23:12, 2 July 2020 (UTC)reply
OK, that means the Marinmuseum ones can't be used. The postcard is great, because it is presumed published when it was created, as postcards were offered for sale at that time. The Karlsson postcard could use {{PD-old-70}} for Sweden and {{PD-US-expired}} for the US. The archive.org one doesn't provide any publication details, so it can't be used because no US PD tag will fit. So, I suggest replacing the infobox image with the postcard, and deleting the other Marinmuseum one and I think we are done here.
Peacemaker67 (
click to talk to me)
04:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)reply
This should now be done. Thank you for your help with this. Not only has this taught me a lot about editing on Wikipedia, I have learnt a lot more about images on Wikimedia Commons too.
simongraham (
talk)
22:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)reply
No worries. I appreciate this has been a drawn-out process, but I am very glad you have learnt a bit from it. This is now easily GA, and I encourage you to nominate it for Milhist A-Class Review at
WP:MHR, where you will get further feedback for improvements. This article is well-written, verifiable using reliable sources, covers the subject well, is neutral and stable, contains no plagiarism, and is illustrated by acceptably licensed images with appropriate captions. Passing.
Peacemaker67 (
click to talk to me)
01:18, 4 July 2020 (UTC)reply