Talk:Battle of Öland/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

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

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

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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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