Talk:HSwMS Niord

Comments

• Use of the Roslagen Air Corps designation is anachronistic
  • Clarified.
• Suggest changing max in the infobox to deep load in parentheses
  • I am not sure it is analogous in the source. The range of terms used for displacement and draft seem excessive to me.
• link Motala
  • Good spot. Done.
• you already gave the Swedish term for coast defense ships in the lede
  • True. I feel everything in the lead should also be in the body.
    • I agree, although to a lesser degree. I don't sweat foreign terms unless they're reused very deep into the article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:50, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
• 3 digit precision for speeds is excessively precise
  • I was surprised too. The source is very impressive in its accuracy.
    • Good, just remember summary style.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:50, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
• link elevation, training, bridge, centreline, stability
  • Done apart from training, which is a disambiguation page. [[Training (gunnery)]] redirects to [[Gun turret]] so I have wikilinked turrets instead. Centreline redirects to a definition - are you thinking of making this an article?
    • Try Gun laying instead. No, centreline isn't worth an article, but I think that the definition is useful--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:50, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
      • Added. simongraham (talk) 18:37, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
• More later--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
• Wide really doesn't work for armor belts. Try deep or tall
  • Done.
• Fleks has a Swedish title, but is in Polish?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:42, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
  • The text is.
    • Curious.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:50, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
• Check out this for foreign voyages: [1] --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Unfortunately, it seems to only list one trip to Danzig, which I cannot find in any contemporary source and does not greatly add to the story. I will use this for others though.
    • Absolutely. It's gonna be a gold mine for Fylgia, though and helps a little bit for a couple of the destroyers.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66: Thank you for your comments, which have definitely improved the article. I have nominated it for GA. simongraham (talk) 15:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Good, but having done this; I'll have to let someone else review it :-(. I haven't really looked at her sister yet; can I assume that the description section is much the same as this? So all I'd need to look at would be the career section?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:50, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• I just noticed the 46 cm torpedoes. Friedman's WWI naval weapons book only lists 35, 38 and 45 cm torpedoes in service. I've never heard of any torpedoes of that size so I'd be willing to be a large amount of money that it's a typo.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:57, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Good spot. Amended. simongraham (talk) 18:37, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Nominator: Simongraham (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk · contribs) 12:53, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this shortly. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 12:53, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Prelim

• Long tons and nautical miles are duplicated links
  • Removed.
• File:HMS Niord.jpg has no US PD and not currently sure about the existing Swedish rationale as no publishing date is provided for the "published anonymously before 1 January 1954" rationale.
  • Updated the source and licenses.
• Article is stable
• Earwig reports copyvio unlikely

Lede and infobox

• First class needs a hyphen
  • Added.
• "However, this service did not last long." I would consider 4-5 years of service to be enough that this sentence isn't needed
  • Removed.
• Main text could more explicitly explain the namesake (to avoid needing an infobox citation)
  • Added.
• Should the infobox have the design speed instead of the trials speed?
  • Good point. Changed.
• Complement differs between infobox and main text
  • Oops. Amended.

Design and development

• Why/how was Oden successful? First sentence of the first paragraph is tipping the reader straight into the deep end!
  • Clarified.
• A word on what makes a ship "first-class"?
  • Added.
• "After reconstruction" give the year here
  • Added.
• Link bow
  • Added.
• Link nickel-steel
  • Added.
• Suggest moving the searchlight mention to the end of the third paragraph, seems awkward coming after unrelated armour explanation
  • Moved.

Construction and career

• Sentence beginning "On 20 February 1904..." has two "in response"s which is awkward reading
  • Reworded.
• Day Bosanquet was a knight (1905)
  • Added.
• Do we know where she was based during her service? Which parts of the coast, or which port?
  • Unfortunately, the sources do not give any more information than I have given.
• "out of the front-line service"
  • Removed.
• "and finally to be an exhibit" something missing here
  • Clarified.

References

• References look good. AGF for print sources.

@Simongraham: Hi, apologies for the delay (my work is making these more common than they should be!), that's all I have for now. Not sure if Sturmvogel 66 might want to be involved as well? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: Not a problem. Very kindly, Sturmvogel 66 has already had a look through and provided very helpful suggestions, which have already been acted on. Please look at my comments above. I believe all the changes you request are done. simongraham (talk) 17:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

@Simongraham: Passing this article as satisfying the GA criteria. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)