Talk:Sweden during World War I/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Haukurth (talk · contribs) 09:54, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the lead needs to be significantly expanded to cover the most important contents of the article (MOS:LEAD). Haukur (talk) 12:52, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Much better! Certainly long enough now and it does seem to cover the major points of the article. Haukur (talk) 13:21, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The mention of Nazi Germany rearmament is interesting but feels like it's maybe a bit too far from the core topic of the article to bring up in the lead. What do you think? Haukur (talk) 14:30, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've trimmed this part now. Works for me. Haukur (talk) 19:16, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Qvarnström citation needs to be expanded. Haukur (talk) 12:52, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I added the 'doi' and 'website' parameters here. I guess we could add 'editor' parameters as well but in any case there's plenty of information there now. Sadly, Qvarnström died in 2018 at the age of 42. Haukur (talk) 13:26, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've removed Park so no further issues here. Haukur (talk) 13:27, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the Salmon citation, "page=Chapter 4e" is not ideal. We should have both the name of the chapter and the name of the book. Can you get the pdf here?[1] If not, I can send it to you. Haukur (talk) 12:52, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've replied to this on your talk page. I've sent you the file just now. Haukur (talk) 13:39, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here we have three paragraphs of information cited to an article published in 1915. We're taking Curtin completely at face value here. Is he an unbiased source and did he have access to accurate information? Is he used like this by modern historians? I'd be a lot more comfortable here with some additional sourcing. Haukur (talk) 09:46, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You've improved the section now. Still a lot of Curtin which I'm still a little uncomfortable with but I think this will do for the GA level. Haukur (talk) 13:44, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Three paragraphs with just one citation. And that citation, to page 473 of Scott 1988, does not in fact contain all this information. Maybe the surrounding pages do but I don't have access to all of them at the moment. In any case, it would be good to have a separate citation at least after every paragraph. Haukur (talk) 09:54, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Much improved with a lot more detail and references. Is "foreign minister Wallenburg", who is introduced here, the same guy as "diplomat Marcus Wallenburg" who is mentioned later? Haukur (talk) 14:21, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, right, it's all Wallenberg. Okay. Haukur (talk) 21:53, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My main concern here is that I think the article isn't broad enough—there are many aspects of the topic which it doesn't touch on at all. Comparing it with Qvarnström's article, our article does a decent job of covering military issues and foreign policy but it is missing coverage of various domestic consequences of the war—including riots because of food shortages, demands for social reform, and the rise of anti-war literature.[2] Haukur (talk) 10:40, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you pretty much doubled the article! I think it's pretty clear that it satisfies the 'broad' criterion now. Haukur (talk) 14:27, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The images seem all right. The one showing Hvalen was a bit confusing to me at first since it's not easy to make out the submarine at first glance. Haukur (talk) 12:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work here, I think we're nearly done. Just a couple more issues to look into and maybe I'll do a touch more light copyediting. Haukur (talk) 14:31, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Haukur, I've done my best to clear up. If the Curtin ref is the only thing stopping this article becoming an FA then I'd work to fix it but otherwise I'm OK as-is. FOARP (talk) 14:05, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think Curtin is a big deal. I'm satisfied that the article is broad, neutral, stable, illustrated and decently written so I'm happy to pass it now as a Good Article. A pleasure working with you. Haukur (talk) 15:01, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]