130:. Decisive action in naval engagements had been achieved through boarding, but after the middle of the 17th century tactical theory focused more on disabling or sinking an opponent through superior firepower from a distance. This entailed major changes in doctrine, shipbuilding, and professionalism in European navies from the 1650s and onwards. The line of battle favored very large ships that were steady sailers and could hold the line in the face of heavy fire. This new style of warfare was marked by a successively stricter organization. The new tactics also depended on an increased disciplining of society and the demands of powerful centralized governments that could maintain large, permanent, loyal fleets led by a professional officer corps. Battle formations became standardized, worked out from mathematically calculated, ideal models.": What's a "melee tactic" ... is that the same thing as hand-to-hand melee? What's a frame of a melee tactic? What does it mean to achieve "decisive action"? What changes were there in doctrine, shipbuilding, and professionalism? What's a "steady sailer" ... does it have bigger or more effective sails, is the hull more streamlined, is it more stable (with a lower
365:"The move was bold royal ambition in a highly militarized society geared for almost constant warfare, a fiscal-military state. Disbanding its armies meant paying outstanding wages, so there was an underlying incentive to keep hostilities alive and let soldiers live off enemy lands and plunder. " - these sentences jarred a bit. I know what each bit means, but I couldn't see how the royal ambition linked to the problems of the fiscal-military 17th century state. If we mean that King Charles couldn't afford to demobilise his armies, so was forced to continue the war on Denmark, fair enough - but is there an easier way to word it?
377:"The increased power of the state at the expense of individual landowners led to the expansion of armies and navies" - are you happy that the causal direction is just one-way? (i.e. that the expansion of armies didn't encourage the state to increase its power?) I may be out of date, but I'm sure I've read authors suggesting the latter as well as the former, e.g. Anderson's "War and Society in Europe of the Old Regime".
427:
Regarding growth of armies and increased power to centralized governments, I'm pretty sure Glete doesn't make much of a distinction between military and political elite. It might be more relevant for states that relied more on trade for wealth, but this isn't really the case with 17th century Sweden.
249:
in the
References, you appear to be using slightly different styles for some of the entries. For instance, "Rodger, Nicholas" v. "Goran Rystad" ("surname, first name" v. "first name surname"). Additionally, compare the way the years are presented. It might be easier for the sake of consistency to use
716:
There is something a little informal sounding about this wording: "The Dutch intervened in 1658 by sending a fleet to stop the attempt to crush
Denmark...", specifically "to crush Denmark". Perhaps consider something like: "The Dutch intervened in 1658 by sending a fleet to stop any movement against
434:
is the formal, "official" term since the two were technically separate kingdoms. However, Danish hegemony was never in doubt. The king and the nobility were Danish, not
Norwegian. As far as I understand, Norway didn't have an independent foreign policy or anything like that. Overall, the position of
286:
G'day again, Peter, your changes look good (I made a minor tweak to the
References, though, please check you are happy with that). Regarding the above comment, I'd suggest tweaking the stem sentence to introduce the list. For example, instead of just "The numbers in parentheses indicates the number
720:
This could possibly be reworded: "The southern Baltic became a strategically important scene for both
Denmark and Sweden..." specially not sure about "scene", which doesn't quite seem like the right word and may be redundant at any rate. Consider perhaps: "The southern Baltic became strategically
134:
height), is it more seaworthy, or are you saying it could stay afloat after taking a heavy pounding? What does "successively stricter organization" mean? How do you discipline a society? If a battle line is just a straight line, why do you need higher mathematics to calculate an "ideal model"? -
96:, but its also interesting since it was subject to an official inquiry on the Swedish side and a dispute among the commanders on the allied side, both of which are well-documented and researched. I've tried my best to put the battle into historical context, both militarily and politically.
705:
Prose seems a little awkward here: "Uggla himself drowned while escaping the burning ship, and after this loss of a second admiral, the rest of the
Swedish fleet fled in disorder." Consider instead something like: "Uggla himself drowned while escaping the burning ship,
374:"The new tactics also depended on powerful, centralized governments that could maintain large, permanent fleets" - minor, but don't we mean "governments being able to maintain..."? The dependence is on the maintainance of the fleets, not the governments.
524:
Elbing, Pillau and Memel were very temporary acquisitions as far as I understand. The year span is simply when they were occupied. The Riga date I'm not sure of. It might have something to do with it's status as a
351:
Looks good in terms of sources, although I'm more solid on land history in this period, rather than naval. And it's always great to see more articles on the 17th century! Copyediting points, in the main, follow:
782:
are actually specified in sources. But now that you bring it up, I'm a bit unsure about the actual number of ships sunk. I think I might have forgotten to specify some of them. I'll check my sources in a few
287:
of guns for each ship.", something like this might be better: "The following list details the forces that took part in the battle. Note: the numbers in parentheses indicate the number of guns for each ship."
224:: G'day, interesting article. It generally looks good to me, but it's not really a topic I'm comfortable reviewing, as I don't know anything about it really. Anyway, I have a couple of minor suggestions:
596:
A high point joining an anti-French alliance. As Sweden changed sides shortly afterwards I think "a high point" is better deleted as confusing. You have already said it was a foreign policy success.
323:
269:
336:
296:
281:
811:
797:
630:
580:
541:
757:
380:"In late fall of 1675" - I can't remember if the article is using US or BritEng. If the former, pls ignore. I'm assuming that we don't have a specific month (otherwise WP:Season would apply)
439:
234:
453:
In the map, dates are of acquisition, and in brackets are of loss. So what does the date 1621 mean for Riga (is the date of loss just omitted?) and the dates 1629-35 for 3 other towns.
208:
171:
157:
713:
Also awkward: "The Danish King
Christian V was able to ship troops over to Swedish soil...", consider instead: "The Danish King Christian V was able to ship troops to Sweden..."
196:
770:
Losses aren't specifically spelt out in one place, but they're provided in context. Manpower losses aren't specified in any sources, actually. Only the manpower losses from
727:
Regard note #1 "See Jan Glete (2002) War and the State in Early Modern Europe: Spain, the Dutch
Republic and Sweden as Fiscal-Military States, 1500–1600. Routledge, London.
89:) and I'm would like to bring this to FA-status as well. It just passed a GA review and I got the recommendation to request an A-Class review as a preliminary step to FAC.
86:
149:, I'll try to deal with the issue there and then transfer the result to this article. I've tried to take your comments here into consideration in the latest fixes to the
102:
615:
568:
508:
416:
532:
The anti-French Triple
Alliance was a success because it allied Sweden with several other states, ei a diplomatic success. Do you feel it needs any clarifications?
140:
362:"Dano-Norwegian naval supremacy" When I first read this I thought I'd missed the Norwegian role in the battle; don't know if there's any easy to explain this?
57:
677:"The view shows the Swedish as a bustling port, and in the foreground the...", specifically "the Swedish" - is this a typo? Should it be "Stockholm"?
21:
786:
I like the "crush" part myself. I feel it's more dramatic prose than an informal thang, which to me is valid as long as it's not obvious POV.
122:, the same problems as I have with the same section in your article currently at FAC. My questions concern this paragraph: "... Previously,
697:
493:"He claimed that if he had gotten proper support" Gotten is an Americanism which does not sound right to British ears. How about received?
277:
should address your concerns. Regarding "Forces", isn't this what the note says? If it's unclear, how do you feel it should be clarified?
574:
I've fixed most of the issues, I believe, but not all. Work is taking up a lot of time right now. I'll deal with by the end of next week.
243:"20 ships under admiral Niels Juel", as the rank appears to be a title here, it should probably be capitalised, e.g. "Admiral Niels Juel"
188:
398:"as a result of poor communication and signaling" - more out of curiosity, but how did they communicate other than using signaling?
456:
The
Swedish attack on Denmark threatened English interests, and an English fleet was sent to support Sweden. This seems illogical.
465:"Denmark, the Dutch Republic, and the Holy Roman Empire were all at war against Sweden and France" Separately or as an alliance?
246:
in the Forces section, does ref # 37 cover all of the entries? If so, I suggest tweaking the stem sentence to make this clearer.
487:"were captured by Juel and his subordinate on Anna Sophia". Is there a reason his subordinate (first lieutenant?) is mentioned?
17:
832:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
745:
to the works in the ref section that are too old to have ISBNs. These can be found through WorldCat.org (suggestion only).
39:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
702:
Losses for each side appear in the infobox but don't appear to be spelt out in the article itself (unless I missed it).
763:
731:
623:
518:
422:
275:
789:
Glete (2002) is really just suggested reading. The political background doesn't rely specifically on him since the
656:
118:
Hi Peter, welcome to A-class. I see you're an old hand around FAC, but I have some problems with for instance
666:
650:
762:
Thank you very much for the pointers. And the compliment. Here's the implementation of most of suggestions.
392:"Creutz was in conflict with his officers after Bornholm" - how about "Creutz argued with his officers..."?
462:
Why was it a high point to join an anti-French alliance when shortly afterwards Sweden allied with France?
119:
474:"Swedish Pomerania, its holdings on the Baltic coast" I am not sure whether holdings is the right word.
319:
292:
265:
230:
600:
371:"tactical theory focused more" - do we mean tactical theory? (i.e. was tactical practice different?)
359:"and after the loss of a second admiral," "and after this loss of" would make this slightly clearer.
564:
53:
306:"indicate" in this case "numbers" and "indicates" doesn't work together. "the numbers...indicate"
126:
were based on individual ships or small units within the frame of what has later been called the
62:
807:
753:
611:
504:
490:"The Swedish fleet had suffered a stinging blow" A bit colloquial. I would prefer a major blow.
459:"Charles' plans were thwarted" What plans? The attempt to crush Denmark? This could be clearer.
184:
790:
559:
do you feel you have addressed all the above points, or are you still working on it? Cheers,
535:
Note 38 is just a clarifying comment. The entire list of ships is already covered by note 37.
315:
288:
261:
226:
683:
204:
was just promoted, so I'm switching focus to this review again. Thanks for the tinkering.
8:
735:
693:
The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd)
794:
662:
627:
593:"the Dutch who were in fierce competition with England at the time)." - orphan bracket.
577:
554:
538:
436:
412:
333:
278:
254:
205:
154:
99:
73:
63:
803:
749:
728:
607:
560:
500:
401:
Worth checking the linking of a couple of nautical terms: e.g ."mainmast", "gunport".
49:
724:
Suggest wikilinking "lee side" to explain to readers who don't know what that means.
428:
It's more of an issue of the crown growing in power at the expense of the nobility.
471:
The Swedish side had problems" Sounds a bit odd to me. Why not just 'The Swedes'?
696:
The Earwig Tool reveal no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing
671:
Images all seem to be PD / free and have the req'd information (no action req'd)
368:"and by September 1675 Denmark" - I'd have put commas around "by September 1675"
431:
192:
167:
136:
111:
408:
201:
146:
123:
82:
389:" the two fleets fought a largely indecisive" - is "largely" necessary here?
131:
603:. Maybe the hatnote should be to a new disambig page for the 3 battles.
407:" following the death of its commander by disease." - "from disease"?
526:
421:
Thanks for the comments. I think this should address your concerns.
395:"After the unsuccessful action" - I'd have put a comma after action
710:
the rest of the Swedish fleet fled in disorder." (suggestion only)
153:-article. If anything is still unclear, just comment at the FAC.
468:"from the 1650s and onwards" I would leave out the word 'and'.
92:
The battle of Öland is probably best known for the sinking of
356:"Just as the battle began " I'd have added a comma after this
435:
Norway was more akin to that of Finland under Swedish rule.
742:
166:
do some copyediting when it's close to promotion. - Dank (
110:. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (
626:
should deal with that. Thanks-a-plenty for the review!
314:
as above, what does "s" mean here? Should it be "pp."?
748:
Otherwise this is an excellent article in my opinion.
332:) from the sv.wiki original that I forgot to convert.
386:"On May 25–26" - elsewhere you're using "25 May" etc.
529:
within Livonia or something like it. Not 100% sure.
313:
in the citations, "Barfod (1997), s. 54–55" --: -->
309:
in the citations, "Glete (1993), s. 173–78" --: -->
162:Now that I'm supporting at FAC, I'll come back and
499:These are all minor points - a very good article.
477:Creutz argued with this officers after Bornholm"
404:"The battle of Öland " - capitalisation of battle
383:"and loss of vital equipment" - "and the loss"
328:Fixed. It was just the Swedish abbreviations (
310:what does "s" mean here? Should it be "pp."?
668:(suggestion only - not an ACR requirement).
674:Most captions look fine, one minor issue:
274:Thank you for the pointers. I believe this
239:is this a typo: "between Dernmark" --: -->
721:important for both Denmark and Sweden..."
145:Since it's basically the same text as in
424:Lemme know if anything i still unclear.
14:
18:Knowledge:WikiProject Military history
682:One duplicate link to be removed per
734:for an in-depth study." Shouldn't a
33:The following discussion is closed.
717:Denmark..." or something like that.
521:should address all the points made.
81:This is an outgrowth of my work on
27:
183:: I copyedited the article per my
120:Battle_of_Öland#State of the fleet
28:
847:
826:The discussion above is closed.
665:so you might consider adding it
260:or something similar. Regards,
13:
1:
7:
793:is a pretty broad concept.
599:There is a stub article on
10:
852:
496:Note 38 is not referenced.
484:i would link flag officer.
103:20:25, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
812:09:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
798:06:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
758:07:52, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
655:External links check out
631:15:22, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
616:14:12, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
581:08:52, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
569:07:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
542:07:54, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
337:07:54, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
58:12:16, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
829:Please do not modify it.
661:Some of the images lack
509:15:01, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
440:16:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
417:15:05, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
324:10:30, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
297:10:30, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
282:16:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
270:11:01, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
235:11:01, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
209:16:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
197:04:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
172:19:43, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
36:Please do not modify it.
305:typo "indicates" -: -->
158:16:04, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
141:12:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
802:Added my support now.
601:Battle of Öland (1563)
191:are my edits. - Dank (
185:copyediting disclaimer
791:fiscal-military state
589:and minor comments.
765:And a few comments:
699:(no action req'd).
658:(no action req'd).
652:(no action req'd).
240:"between Denmark"?
708:and with his loss
550:Note to nominator
77:
843:
831:
558:
316:AustralianRupert
289:AustralianRupert
262:AustralianRupert
259:
253:
250:a template like
227:AustralianRupert
70:
38:
851:
850:
846:
845:
844:
842:
841:
840:
836:
827:
741:Suggest adding
552:
257:
251:
164:review this one
67:
64:Battle of Öland
34:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
849:
838:
835:
834:
822:
821:
820:
819:
818:
817:
816:
815:
814:
787:
784:
767:
766:
746:
739:
736:short citation
725:
722:
718:
714:
711:
703:
700:
694:
691:
690:
689:
680:
679:
678:
672:
669:
659:
653:
636:
635:
634:
633:
605:
604:
597:
594:
584:
583:
575:
547:
546:
545:
544:
536:
533:
530:
522:
512:
511:
497:
494:
491:
488:
485:
482:
475:
472:
469:
466:
463:
460:
457:
454:
445:
444:
443:
442:
432:Denmark-Norway
429:
425:
405:
402:
399:
396:
393:
390:
387:
384:
381:
378:
375:
372:
369:
366:
363:
360:
357:
344:
343:
342:
341:
340:
339:
311:
307:
303:
302:
301:
300:
299:
247:
244:
241:
214:
213:
212:
211:
178:
177:
176:
175:
174:
85:(currently at
79:
78:
72:Nominator(s):
66:
61:
43:
42:
41:
29:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
848:
839:
833:
830:
824:
823:
813:
809:
805:
801:
800:
799:
796:
792:
788:
785:
781:
777:
773:
769:
768:
764:
761:
760:
759:
755:
751:
747:
744:
740:
738:be used here?
737:
733:
732:0-415-22645-7
730:
726:
723:
719:
715:
712:
709:
704:
701:
698:
695:
692:
687:
686:
685:
684:WP:REPEATLINK
681:
676:
675:
673:
670:
667:
664:
660:
657:
654:
651:
649:No dab links
648:
647:
646:
643:
642:
638:
637:
632:
629:
625:
622:
621:
620:
619:
618:
617:
613:
609:
602:
598:
595:
592:
591:
590:
588:
582:
579:
576:
573:
572:
571:
570:
566:
562:
556:
555:Peter Isotalo
551:
543:
540:
537:
534:
531:
528:
523:
520:
516:
515:
514:
513:
510:
506:
502:
498:
495:
492:
489:
486:
483:
480:
476:
473:
470:
467:
464:
461:
458:
455:
452:
451:
450:
449:
441:
438:
433:
430:
426:
423:
420:
419:
418:
414:
410:
406:
403:
400:
397:
394:
391:
388:
385:
382:
379:
376:
373:
370:
367:
364:
361:
358:
355:
354:
353:
349:
348:
338:
335:
331:
327:
326:
325:
321:
317:
312:
308:
304:
298:
294:
290:
285:
284:
283:
280:
276:
273:
272:
271:
267:
263:
256:
248:
245:
242:
238:
237:
236:
232:
228:
225:
223:
219:
216:
215:
210:
207:
203:
202:Kronan (ship)
200:
199:
198:
194:
190:
186:
182:
179:
173:
169:
165:
161:
160:
159:
156:
152:
148:
147:Kronan (ship)
144:
143:
142:
138:
133:
129:
125:
124:naval tactics
121:
117:
116:
115:
113:
109:
105:
104:
101:
97:
95:
90:
88:
84:
83:Kronan (ship)
76:
75:
69:
68:
65:
60:
59:
55:
51:
48:
40:
37:
31:
30:
23:
19:
837:
828:
825:
804:Anotherclown
780:Churprindsen
779:
775:
771:
750:Anotherclown
707:
644:
640:
639:
608:Dudley Miles
606:
586:
585:
565:send... over
561:Peacemaker67
549:
548:
501:Dudley Miles
478:
447:
446:
350:
346:
345:
329:
221:
220:
217:
193:push to talk
180:
168:push to talk
163:
150:
137:push to talk
128:melee tactic
127:
112:push to talk
107:
106:
98:
93:
91:
80:
71:
54:send... over
50:Peacemaker67
46:
44:
35:
32:
519:these edits
132:metacentric
688:Niels Juel
22:Assessment
527:free city
481:officers?
255:cite book
663:Alt Text
641:Comments
517:I think
448:Comments
409:Hchc2009
347:Comments
222:Comments
108:Comments
47:promoted
45:Article
20: |
776:Svärdet
645:Support
587:Support
218:Support
181:Comment
772:Kronan
151:Kronan
135:Dank (
94:Kronan
795:Peter
783:days.
743:OCLCs
628:Peter
578:Peter
539:Peter
437:Peter
334:Peter
279:Peter
206:Peter
189:These
155:Peter
100:Peter
74:Peter
16:<
808:talk
778:and
754:talk
729:ISBN
624:This
612:talk
505:talk
413:talk
330:sida
320:talk
293:talk
266:talk
231:talk
479:his
114:)
87:FAC
810:)
774:,
756:)
614:)
567:)
507:)
415:)
322:)
295:)
268:)
258:}}
252:{{
233:)
195:)
187:.
170:)
139:)
56:)
806:(
752:(
610:(
563:(
557::
553:@
503:(
411:(
318:(
291:(
264:(
229:(
52:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.