162:
chronological and neat, delving into details here and there to reinforce the points made, but not too much so as to diverge from the central topic. The prose and grammar (1A) are impeccable. I couldn't "stop" reading the article, there were no bumps, I just kept going like I was hypnotised (except for the list, which is clearly allowed by the MOS anyway). Finally (1C), how many dubious sources can I count? Zero. It's short, sweet, consistent and wrapped in a package of cuteness and terseness. What do you get, Peter, for doing all this work?
722:
from an article dealing more with
Swedish matters and it shows. I think the second paragraph, and the sentences leading into it, could be cut completely without the article suffering. The second Dano-Swedish is mostly interesting in this context for what it reveals about Dutch policies, but it is not as necessary to know the details of it as the fact that Sweden had grown at the expense of Denmark and that the Danes were looking for a chance to take back what had been lost.
562:
Finally, one comment on the structure/balance of the article. It seems that there's a lot of background and I can't see how most of it ties in with the main event. The battle section has the opposite problem: comparatively little information. It's my opinion that the event section of an article on an
546:
In the lead, "Just as the battle began, the
Swedish flagship Kronan sank with the loss of almost its entire crew, including the Admiral of the Realm and commander of the Swedish navy, Lorentz Creutz" makes it sound like the loss of the entire crew sank, not that the entire crew sank. Suggest "Just as
369:
I'm looking for suitable sources regarding the Danish foreign policy situation, but Dutch and
English foreign policies seem off-topic to me. The Dutch were auxilliaries of Denmark and the English never even fought. Besides, there's already content about the reasons for Dutch and English involvement.
900:
No, there is a sentence or two that I believe could be cut if you want to shorten it further, but it seems rather more well-balanced now. I did find another thing, though. In the battle section, the text seems to contradict itself "Several
Swedish ships attempted to assist Uggla, but they were in a
342:
The entire background is also very much written from a
Swedish perspective. It would be good to expand it to cover the Danish and Dutch situation as well. In particular, it would be worth noting how the Dutch (and English) had a long standing strategy of trying to balance Sweden and Denmark against
721:
I actually wouldn't mind if some of the material was cut, but it should be rewritten to cover at least
Denmark and Sweden on more equal terms; if the policies of Sweden leading up to the war is covered, the same should be true for Denmark. I think the background would gain from a rewrite; it comes
625:
Sorry it took this long to get back. It kept slipping my mind to reply. The prose is good now, and I'm fine with the shortness of the battle section and the lack of info on the number of men since there aren't sources to support extra info. I still think the background section is too long for the
586:
Good points regarding prose. There aren't really that much more to add about the battle, though. I generelly agree about the balance of content, but it will always depend on the event. There are no simply no blow-by-blow accounts of this particular battle. The info about the proceedings of the
161:
For the length, media, lead, structure, citations, stability and neutrality (points 1B, 1D, 1E, 2, 3 and 4 of the FA criteria) they're all fine – this is a well-documented historical event from a long time ago, and it even comes with paintings! As well as that, the overall structure is all
1211:"This emboldened Sweden's enemies, and by September 1675, Denmark, the Dutch Republic, the Holy Roman Empire and Spain were all joined in war against Sweden as an ally of France." I had to read this twice to work out who was an ally of who. I think "Sweden and France" would be clearer.
1085:
I can only do a very superficial review, as the sources all seem to be books in
Swedish (presumably) about which I can offer no opinion. I will take on trust that they are of appropriate quality and reliability. Likewise, no spot-checks are possible. A few minor points:
404:
I seem to have missed this reply. The first point is OK now, and the second has been addressed below; I'm satisfied with the background; England was mostly an aside that I thought could be easily included together with the
Netherlands since they had similar aims and
338:
The background section covers the
Scanian war in two different parts; one directly under the background section, and later under the title Scanian war, with an interlude about the state of the navies in between. This should be rearranged to be
627:
1214:"putting themselves on the allied fleet's lee side and gaining the tactical advantage of holding the weather gage." I thought the fleet on the windward side had the weather gage, not the one on the lee side.
1138:
I don't think it is best practice to mix general, uncited observations with actual citations to sources, but I'll leave that to you. Incidentally, in the case of note 43, this information should be cited.
805:
I think that's much better balanced. There are a couple of things that could still be cut, but it does a much better job of explaining why there was a war and why the Dutch were allied with the Danes.
180:
250:
358:
231:
The two
Swedish vessels mentioned in the first paragraph were actually taken by Brandenburg/Prussian warships. They were however not involved in either battle, but it might be worth mentioning.
327:
556:"After about an hour-and-a-half to two hours of hard fighting Svärdet's mainmast went overboard and Uggla had to strike his colors (surrender) to Tromp". Just saying surrender would be fine.
666:. They have more info on the action itself, but that's because they're blessed with highly detailed, modern sources. The relative importance of those battles is comparable to this one. And
1266:
1241:
1196:
1179:
1152:
195:
1012:
116:
303:
276:
1074:
912:
859:
816:
772:
419:
391:
219:
Since the Sound Toll was a Danish institution, I am not convinced that the English fleet was sent to "keep it out of Danish control". The English wanted it gone, at least at the time.
1148:
I stand by my preference for simplicity (and a healthy dose of typographical conservatism). :-) If it works and is widely used outside of Knowledge, I prefer to use it here as well.
225:
The Holy Roman Empire is suddenly involved. Maybe a sentence or two might be added how that came to be. And this might include a mention of the Franco-Dutch war going on at the time.
945:
696:
676:
641:
613:
596:
134:
525:
516:
498:
408:
The naval reforms were not only the new naval base, but also the new allotment system. I agree that there is no need to cover this in any depth: a sentence or two should be enough.
381:
I added some information about the founding of Karlskrona, but as with the foreign policy, is this really relevant in this article? It would be either the Scanian War article or
228:
In the chapter "Prelude" the Danish fleet is mentioned sailing from Gotland (Visby), which was last mentioned being ceded to Sweden by Denmark. It seems they somehow got it back.
733:
989:
485:
465:
1056:
1226:
1115:
547:
the battle began, the Swedish flagship Kronan sank, killing almost all of its crew, including the Admiral of the Realm and commander of the Swedish navy, Lorentz Creutz"
129:
972:
80:
553:
Not really sure what the sentence "By early 1672 Swedish relations with France had improved and an alliance with the most powerful state in Europe was joined" means.
206:
In general, a comprehensive and well-referenced article that meets the FAC as far as I can tell. However, there are some minor details that I would like to address:
210:
As the date of the battle is according to the Julian calender, I would suggest to add the Georgian date as well (since at least one participant used it at the time)
57:
268:
was a year later. Ships might have been up-gunned. Or it might be a completely different ship. Either way, that's what the sources say. I Fixed Zettersten, though.
238:
had 68 at Öland and 74 at Møn). Incidentally, Zettersten was published in 1903 according to the bibliography, and in 1997 according to the reference. Which is it?
578:
151:
981:
I pretty much always go for default size, so I don't have a sense of what's appropriate. Would you mind doing the size tweaks to what you feel is better?
559:"Despite the astounding success, several allied officers were displeased with the conduct of their forces." Is there a source for the claim "astounding"?
447:
563:
event should generally be the largest section, while the background and aftermath sections should be smaller or at least approximately the same size.
670:
is asking for more background above. I could very well be wrong, but both of you obviously can't be right at the same time. So how do we solve this?
1093:
Footnotes that are merely comments, e.g. 1, 2, 43, should be listed separately from citations. For example, n.2 could be listed as an external link
186:
Thank you very much for the support. I should add that I've had help-a-plenty with fine-tuning the prose, so kudos to everyone who has contributed.
96:, but it has more details on the aftermath as well as the Danish and Dutch perspectives. It's a relatively minor battle and far less notable than
901:
lee position and could not provide effective support Only Hieronymus, Neptunus and Järnvågen, an armed merchantman, had tried to support Uggla."
1003:
123:
article. I've had some very nice help from both processes and I think it's up to par to become an FA. I'm looking forward to a thorough review.
343:
each other (but more importantly to try to control France!), which had started much earlier and would continue through the Great Northern War.
297:
who captured what at Bornholm (it wasn't just the Prussians). I forgot to point out that I added info on the motivations of Emperor Leopold I.
960:
File:Ortus-imperii-suecorum.png (map source): were any pre-existing images used to create this one? Where did this map get its data from?
319:
40:
234:
In the chapter "Forces" the numbers of guns differ from the ones given in "Battle of Møn", although the sources remain the same (eg
216:
In the chapter Background, I am not sure whether wages is the appropriate term for soldiers' pay - if that is what is referred to.
626:
rest of the article. Even shortening it by about 30% would be a great improvement. BTW I have an open FAC if you're interested:
1257:. It does not solve the problem that it took me a second to work out which side France was an ally of but it is no big deal.
607:
Figures for the manpower of the allies fleet seems to be very elusive. It doesn't seem to be specified even in Barfod (1997).
30:
17:
258:
I've been a tad busy with switching jobs, but I'll get cracking on updates later today. I'll address two issues right now:
537:
374:
it would be quite appropriate with a brief summary, but this is a single battle of that war which in itself part of the
1235:
1146:
938:
763:
602:
473:
295:
222:"the war revealed" - I assume it refers to the Danish-Swedish war of 1657-8, not the Scanian War mentioned earlier.
985:
1131:
applies to separation of commentary notes as far as I know. My preference has always been just one set of notes.
1122:
504:
663:
659:
429:
246:
346:
The aftermath section could also mention the naval reforms that were made in Sweden after the war.
1065:
I don't have any further comments. Don't know enough about FA process to really comment on that.
66:
1262:
1222:
1175:
1111:
315:
175:
963:
File:Svenska_flottans_seglingsordning_1675.jpg: possible to translate the image description?
628:
Knowledge:Featured_article_candidates/Fishing Creek (North Branch Susquehanna River)/archive4
590:
I haven't seen any estimates of Dutch or Danish number of men, but I'll double-check my refs.
542:
Mostly a decent article, but a few things need fixing before I can support (most are minor).
382:
97:
1208:
This is a first rate article which I supported at A-Class. A couple of additional comments.
968:
261:
First sentence of "Prelude" mentions the Danes capturing Gotland. Could it be made clearer?
92:(TFA 23 June) comes the battle it sank in. This article shares content with the article on
8:
1042:
289:
242:
995:, it's a very standard map of the territorial expansion of Sweden during it's time as a
1238:
1193:
1149:
1070:
1053:
1009:
942:
908:
856:
812:
769:
729:
673:
620:
610:
593:
522:
495:
415:
388:
354:
300:
273:
192:
141:
126:
77:
67:
1258:
1218:
1171:
1128:
1107:
170:
120:
375:
265:
964:
691:
636:
573:
512:
481:
461:
443:
323:
155:
109:
104:. But it was significant for since it paved the way for the Danish invasion of
1170:
Sorry, I meant 14, not 32. In 14 you have 118–19, which is the inconsistency.
1066:
1052:: Any thoughts on review status? Any outstanding issues still to be amended?
1034:
904:
808:
725:
667:
550:
Is there any information on how many combatants there were on the Dutch side?
435:
411:
350:
89:
53:
988:
is based on, but it matches the sources I've added. As pointed out in the
681:
I'll defer to andejons since I am not familiar with this type of article.
658:
Here are two other battle FAs with similar or more extensive backgrounds:
996:
503:
The greengrocer's apostrophe is the typo of typos. Can you tell us about
371:
101:
687:
632:
569:
146:
Hello there! I'm Parcly Taxel and you're hereby invited to comment on
1038:
508:
477:
457:
439:
39:
Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in
853:
Excellent. Do you feel there's need for further cuts for FA status?
147:
1188:
Note 7 (Glete 2005) is two pages long. There's nothing to specify.
1163:
Page ranges as those in note 32 are intentional. Is it an issue?
163:
105:
1090:
The languages of all non-English sources should be indicated.
491:
1121:
Thank your for the review. Concerns should be fixed with
587:
commission also ties in to the explanation of the battle.
366:
The awkward order of sections in the background is fixed.
108:
and the resulting Dano-Swedish slug match, including the
1102:
n.7: inconsistent format – why not include the page ref?
434:
It's a lovely article. I will probably support once
521:Nah, I'll just save us the effort and self-revert.
112:, the bloodiest battle ever fought in Scandinavia.
1278:The above discussion is preserved as an archive.
135:Comments and support from the Princess of Science
43:. No further edits should be made to this page.
1096:Check page range format consistency, e.g. n.32
1284:No further edits should be made to this page.
213:Also Charles CI should be linked in the lede.
29:The following is an archived discussion of a
957:Map and sailing order could both be larger
41:Knowledge talk:Featured article candidates
14:
438:'s points are answered. Good work! --
18:Knowledge:Featured article candidates
156:the WikiProject on chemical elements
762:I found Dyrvik (1998) today. How's
604:should address your other concerns.
23:
490:I believe mere mortals call them "
314:: I copyedited the article per my
24:
1296:
1125:. I have some retorts, though:
1099:Check your "p." and "pp." usage
494:". :-) Thanks for spotting it.
13:
1:
1145:Fixed 43 and the other stuff.
7:
31:featured article nomination
10:
1301:
1267:13:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
1242:12:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
1227:11:55, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
1197:21:16, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
1180:00:11, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
1153:01:21, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
1116:18:59, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
1075:07:59, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
984:I don't know exactly what
664:battle of the Bismarck Sea
660:battle for Henderson Field
526:11:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
1057:12:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
1013:12:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
1002:Added image stranslation.
973:12:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
946:15:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
913:19:16, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
860:07:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
817:06:56, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
773:22:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
734:21:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
697:12:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
677:18:25, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
642:13:13, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
614:12:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
597:06:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
579:19:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
517:18:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
499:16:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
486:15:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
466:12:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
420:07:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
392:08:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
304:13:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
277:06:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
1281:Please do not modify it.
937:Should be clarified now.
456:, it's looking great. --
448:23:11, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
359:19:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
328:16:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
251:15:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
196:09:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
181:06:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
130:05:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
115:It's currently a GA and
81:05:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
36:Please do not modify it.
322:are my edits. - Dank (
316:copyediting disclaimer
1106:That's all I can do.
472:But how the hell did
56:01:51, 8 August 2014
88:Hot on the trail of
538:Comments from Jakec
189:And yay for ponies!
119:became an A-class
1049:
1045:
1031:
84:
1292:
1283:
1051:
1050:
1047:
1033:
1032:
1029:
1026:
624:
476:get in there? --
376:Franco-Dutch War
293:
178:
173:
145:
74:
48:The article was
38:
1300:
1299:
1295:
1294:
1293:
1291:
1290:
1289:
1288:
1279:
1234:How about this,
1046:
1028:
1027:
1024:
618:
540:
432:
287:
176:
171:
154:. I am part of
139:
137:
71:
68:Battle of Öland
34:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1298:
1287:
1286:
1274:
1273:
1272:
1271:
1270:
1269:
1247:
1246:
1245:
1244:
1216:
1215:
1212:
1209:
1200:
1199:
1191:
1190:
1189:
1185:
1184:
1183:
1182:
1165:
1164:
1160:
1159:
1158:
1157:
1156:
1155:
1140:
1139:
1133:
1132:
1104:
1103:
1100:
1097:
1094:
1091:
1083:Sources review
1080:
1079:
1078:
1077:
1060:
1059:
1016:
1015:
1007:
1006:
1005:
1000:
982:
976:
975:
961:
958:
949:
948:
940:
934:
933:
932:
931:
930:
929:
928:
927:
926:
925:
924:
923:
922:
921:
920:
919:
918:
917:
916:
915:
902:
879:
878:
877:
876:
875:
874:
873:
872:
871:
870:
869:
868:
867:
866:
865:
864:
863:
862:
854:
834:
833:
832:
831:
830:
829:
828:
827:
826:
825:
824:
823:
822:
821:
820:
819:
806:
788:
787:
786:
785:
784:
783:
782:
781:
780:
779:
778:
777:
776:
775:
767:
747:
746:
745:
744:
743:
742:
741:
740:
739:
738:
737:
736:
723:
708:
707:
706:
705:
704:
703:
702:
701:
700:
699:
671:
649:
648:
647:
646:
645:
644:
608:
605:
599:
591:
588:
565:
564:
560:
557:
554:
551:
548:
539:
536:
535:
534:
533:
532:
531:
530:
529:
528:
469:
468:
431:
428:
427:
426:
425:
424:
423:
422:
409:
406:
397:
396:
395:
394:
386:
379:
367:
348:
347:
344:
340:
335:
334:
309:
308:
307:
306:
298:
282:
281:
280:
279:
271:
270:
269:
262:
240:
239:
232:
229:
226:
223:
220:
217:
214:
211:
199:
198:
190:
187:
136:
133:
110:battle of Lund
86:
85:
76:Nominator(s):
70:
65:
63:
61:
46:
45:
25:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1297:
1285:
1282:
1276:
1275:
1268:
1264:
1260:
1256:
1253:
1252:
1251:
1250:
1249:
1248:
1243:
1240:
1236:
1233:
1232:
1231:
1230:
1229:
1228:
1224:
1220:
1213:
1210:
1207:
1206:
1205:
1204:
1198:
1195:
1192:
1187:
1186:
1181:
1177:
1173:
1169:
1168:
1167:
1166:
1162:
1161:
1154:
1151:
1147:
1144:
1143:
1142:
1141:
1137:
1136:
1135:
1134:
1130:
1127:
1126:
1124:
1120:
1119:
1118:
1117:
1113:
1109:
1101:
1098:
1095:
1092:
1089:
1088:
1087:
1084:
1076:
1072:
1068:
1064:
1063:
1062:
1061:
1058:
1055:
1044:
1040:
1036:
1023:
1022:
1021:
1020:
1014:
1011:
1008:
1004:
1001:
998:
994:
993:
987:
983:
980:
979:
978:
977:
974:
970:
966:
962:
959:
956:
955:
954:
953:
947:
944:
941:
939:
936:
935:
914:
910:
906:
903:
899:
898:
897:
896:
895:
894:
893:
892:
891:
890:
889:
888:
887:
886:
885:
884:
883:
882:
881:
880:
861:
858:
855:
852:
851:
850:
849:
848:
847:
846:
845:
844:
843:
842:
841:
840:
839:
838:
837:
836:
835:
818:
814:
810:
807:
804:
803:
802:
801:
800:
799:
798:
797:
796:
795:
794:
793:
792:
791:
790:
789:
774:
771:
768:
765:
761:
760:
759:
758:
757:
756:
755:
754:
753:
752:
751:
750:
749:
748:
735:
731:
727:
724:
720:
719:
718:
717:
716:
715:
714:
713:
712:
711:
710:
709:
698:
695:
693:
689:
684:
680:
679:
678:
675:
672:
669:
665:
661:
657:
656:
655:
654:
653:
652:
651:
650:
643:
640:
638:
634:
629:
622:
621:Peter Isotalo
617:
616:
615:
612:
609:
606:
603:
600:
598:
595:
592:
589:
585:
584:
583:
582:
581:
580:
577:
575:
571:
561:
558:
555:
552:
549:
545:
544:
543:
527:
524:
520:
519:
518:
514:
510:
506:
502:
501:
500:
497:
493:
489:
488:
487:
483:
479:
475:
471:
470:
467:
463:
459:
455:
452:
451:
450:
449:
445:
441:
437:
436:User:Andejons
421:
417:
413:
410:
407:
403:
402:
401:
400:
399:
398:
393:
390:
387:
384:
380:
377:
373:
370:In an FAC of
368:
365:
364:
363:
362:
361:
360:
356:
352:
345:
341:
337:
336:
332:
331:
330:
329:
325:
321:
317:
313:
305:
302:
299:
296:
294:, I specified
291:
286:
285:
284:
283:
278:
275:
272:
267:
266:battle of Møn
263:
260:
259:
257:
256:
255:
254:
253:
252:
248:
244:
237:
233:
230:
227:
224:
221:
218:
215:
212:
209:
208:
207:
204:
203:
197:
194:
191:
188:
185:
184:
183:
182:
179:
174:
169:
167:
164:A pony and a
159:
157:
153:
149:
143:
142:Peter Isotalo
132:
131:
128:
124:
122:
118:
113:
111:
107:
103:
100:later in the
99:
95:
91:
90:Kronan (ship)
83:
82:
79:
73:
72:
69:
64:
60:
58:
55:
51:
44:
42:
37:
32:
27:
26:
19:
1280:
1277:
1259:Dudley Miles
1254:
1219:Dudley Miles
1217:
1202:
1201:
1172:Brianboulton
1108:Brianboulton
1105:
1082:
1081:
1018:
1017:
991:
952:Image review
951:
950:
686:
682:
631:
601:I think this
568:
566:
541:
507:, please? --
453:
433:
385:, not Öland.
349:
324:push to talk
311:
310:
243:ÄDA - DÄP VA
241:
236:Churprindsen
235:
205:
201:
200:
165:
160:
138:
125:
114:
93:
87:
75:
62:
49:
47:
35:
28:
997:Great Power
372:Scanian War
102:Scanian War
1129:WP:CITEVAR
965:Nikkimaria
121:WP:MILHIST
1123:this edit
1043:ÄDA - DÄP
405:policies.
290:ÄDA - DÄP
1203:Comments
1067:Andejons
1035:Andejons
905:Andejons
809:Andejons
726:Andejons
668:andejons
430:Comments
412:Andejons
383:Køge Bay
351:Andejons
339:clearer.
333:Comments
202:Comments
148:fluorine
117:recently
98:Køge Bay
54:Ian Rose
50:promoted
1255:Support
1019:Status?
990:FAC of
683:Support
454:Support
312:Comment
166:support
1237:then?
992:Kronan
172:Parcly
106:Scania
94:Kronan
1239:Peter
1194:Peter
1150:Peter
1054:Peter
1025:Ahoy!
1010:Peter
943:Peter
857:Peter
770:Peter
688:Jakob
674:Peter
633:Jakob
611:Peter
594:Peter
570:Jakob
523:Peter
496:Peter
492:typos
389:Peter
320:These
301:Peter
274:Peter
193:Peter
177:Taxel
127:Peter
78:Peter
16:<
1263:talk
1223:talk
1176:talk
1112:talk
1071:talk
1039:John
986:this
969:talk
909:talk
813:talk
764:this
730:talk
692:talk
685:. --
662:and
637:talk
630:. --
574:talk
513:talk
509:John
505:this
482:talk
478:John
474:this
462:talk
458:John
444:talk
440:John
416:talk
355:talk
264:The
247:talk
152:FAC
150:'s
52:by
1265:)
1225:)
1178:)
1114:)
1073:)
971:)
911:)
815:)
732:)
694:)
639:)
576:)
567:--
515:)
484:)
464:)
446:)
418:)
357:)
326:)
318:.
249:)
158:.
59:.
33:.
1261:(
1221:(
1174:(
1110:(
1069:(
1048:)
1041:—
1037:—
1030:(
999:.
967:(
907:(
811:(
766:?
728:(
690:(
635:(
623::
619:@
572:(
511:(
480:(
460:(
442:(
414:(
378:.
353:(
292::
288:@
245:(
168:.
144::
140:@
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.