Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/HSwMS Oscar II

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 22:20, 12 September 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

HSwMS Oscar II

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Simongraham (talk)

HSwMS Oscar II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I was encouraged to do so by Peacemaker67. simongraham (talk) 06:44, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

All images are freely licensed. The only issue is some sandwiching versus the infobox, see MOS:IMAGELOC. It would be great to have a better quality version of the lead image, but not required. (t · c) buidhe 03:32, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Please can you explain how to resolve the sandwich issue? Would you recommend moving the diagram to the top of the Design section or would it be necesary to place it to the right of the text? Unfortunately I could not find a better image that met the criteria for inclusion. However, please do browse the extensive archive at digitalmuseum.se as there are lots of images of the ship there, including [The Swedish coastal defence ship HMS Oscar II][[1]] and [Oscar II in World War II][[2]] which are in wikimedia. There are likely to be better images that I have missed. simongraham (talk) 11:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved it across and down below the infobox. I'll do a content review tomorrow. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 13:40, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to wait until the source review and CPA-5's reviews have been addressed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:49, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for all your help so far. This is a great learning experience. simongraham (talk) 07:16, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]
  • Does Prendegast & Parkes 1904 have an OCLC?
  • Should be Prendergast, I believe, see [3]
  • Are you sure that's the right ISBN for von Hofsten & Waernberg? See [4]
  • Gardiner has an internet archive link [5], link to it for verification
  • "130 to 190 mm (5.1 to 7.5 in) main turrets" from the infobox is not cited anywhere that I see.
  • "before being decommissioned on 24 February 1950.[28]" - The decommission date is on page 69 of Borgenstam, but the citation gives page 68 (which is correct for the first part of the sentence). You need a page range here.
  • "When World War I started, the Swedish fleet was mobilised with Oscar II as flagship, and spent much of the war practicing firing and damage control due to the country's neutral position" - Not seeing where the source explicitly states Sweden was netural
  • "escort for Victor Emmanuel III of Italy in July 1913" - This is a bit nit-picky, but technically the source states that Amalfi was the escort, the source can be read to indicate that the other ships were only part of the welcoming party
  • "prohibited the use of champagne in the baptizing ceremony." - rephrase this, this is nine words in a row that's exactly the same as in the source, so a little minor COPYVIO here, when it's totally avoidable.
  • " During World war I two of the 57 mm guns were replaced by anti-aircraft guns of the same caliber, M/89 B" is what the source says, which isn't exactly compatible with " including fitting new high angle mounts for two of the 57 mm guns for anti-aircraft defence in 1916" (I'm hoping I'm comparing the correct statements)

I've checked almost all of the Borgenstam references, I'll check Garinder later. Nothing big here, but enough small errors to make me a little uneasy. Hog Farm Bacon 20:08, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"the last Swedish coastal defence ship to be scrapped" is in the lead (and not cited) but is not verified in the body. I'm not quite comfortable with the sourcing right now, especially since I've only checked Borgenstam and several of the print sources I can't access. Hog Farm Bacon 01:22, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for a very thorough review. I have taken on board your comments and hopefully the article is much better now. simongraham (talk) 07:16, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, turns out I can't access the relevant page of Gardiner 1979. @Simongraham: - There were some minor issues with Borgenstam, and I'm worried there might be some minor issues elsewhere. If you're willing to check all of the citations to the non-Borgenstam sources to make sure you got everything exactly right, I'm willing to AGF the edits. Hog Farm Bacon 04:16, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have that volume of Conways; the cites are correct.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:46, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by CPA-5

[edit]
  • HSwMS Oscar II was a coastal defence ship Can you add a note with the meaning of HSwMS onto it? It does not need a citation to a source.
  • A development of the preceding Äran class What was the Äran class? Was it a battleship, defence ship, frigate, cruiser or something else.
  • transporting King Gustav and Queen Victoria to summits Maybe add "the Swedish" before King? Some people (especially our Britsh readers) would think about the British Queen Victoria especially if you have a printed book (yes Wikipedia prints books) then you can't hoover nor there is no link to click on. Also we should mention here we are talking about Gustav V.
  • with the Emperors of Germany and Russia --> "with the emperors of Germany and Russia" and maybe add their names?
  • During World War I the ship was based If this is written in British English then it should be First World War by Ngram.
  • After being modernised and serving neutral Sweden again in World War II Same as above per Ngram.
  • in this case bringing the body of Prince Gustaf Adolf home from Denmark --> " in this case bringing the body of Prince Gustaf Adolf, Duke of Västerbotten home from Denmark"
  • home from Denmark after the air crash of 26 January 1947 --> "home from Denmark after the KLM Douglas DC-3 air crash of 26 January 1947 in Copenhagen"?
  • the tactical advantages of the Swedish archipelago Swedish archipelago goes to the Archipelago Sea? Do you not mean "Åland Islands"?
  • The article uses long tons why that? Didn't the Swedish Navy adopted "tonnes"?
  • for the cheapest option, the Swedish parliament voted --> "for the cheapest option, the Swedish Parliament (the Riksdag) voted"?
  • As built, Oscar II had a normal displacement of 4,273 long tons (4,342 t), displacing 4,584 long tons (4,658 t) at full load Link both "normal" and "full load".
  • The ship was powered by two four-cylinder triple expansion --> "The ship was powered by 2 four-cylinder triple expansion" or "The ship was powered by two 4-cylinder triple expansion" per MOS:NUMNOTES.
  • The engines were rated at 9,400 shp (7,000 kW) --> "The engines were rated at 9,400 shaft horsepower (7,000 kW)"
  • Steam was provided at 16.5 kg/m2 (3.4 lb/sq ft) by Link both units.
  • The guns fired 276 lb (125 kg) shells at a muzzle Were these American or British guns? Or otherwise switch English unit to metric unit as primary unit. Unless it's from a country who didn't recognise metric units like Australia or Canada.
  • muzzle velocity of 750 m (2,460 ft) per second "muzzle velocity of 750 metres per second (2,460 ft/s)"
  • There's a mix between metric and English units?
  • with a 67 m (219 ft 10 in)-long armoured Per WP:UNITSYMBOLS Units in compound adjectives should be fully written thus it should be written like this "with a 67-metre (219 ft 10 in) long armoured".
  • The main battery of Oscar II consisted of a pair --> "The main battery of her consisted of a pair"
  • Oscar II was first modernised in 1910 when a tripod mast --> "She was first modernised in 1910 when a tripod mast"
  • The last paragraph of the "Design" section looks better to be placed into the "Service" section.
  • The "Design" section looks also pretty long maybe split it into sub-sections?
  • upgrade took place in the run up to World War II --> "upgrade took place in the run-up to Second World War"
  • See -ise in "modernised" and -ize in "baptizing" one of the two should be used.
  • The ship was soon flying the flag, travelling to England in the summer Per MOS:SEASONS we should try to avoid this and use "local" or "northern summer" or mid-1907.
  • then returning in time for the king --> "then returning in time for the King"
  • royalty, leaving for Saint Petersburg on 29 April 1908 to take Prince Wilhelm --> "royalty, leaving for Saint Petersburg, Russia on 29 April 1908 to take Prince Wilhelm, Duke of Södermanland"
  • and transporting King Gustav to Sassnitz on 6 July 1909 where he met Wilhelm II --> "and transporting King Gustav V to Sassnitz on 6 July 1909 where he met Wilhelm II of Germany"
  • In the summer of 1912, Oscar II carried Again MOS:SEASONS and change "Oscar" into "she".
  • the king and Queen Victoria to Finland --> "the King and Queen Victoria of Sweden to Finland"
  • but returned to duties soon afterward American afterward per Ngram.
  • transport for the king's visit to Christian X of Denmark --> "transport for the King's visit to Christian X of Denmark"
  • for Victor Emmanuel III of Italy in July 1913 and President Poincaré of France Given name of the French President should be included in his first appearance.
  • When World War I started, the Swedish --> "When the First World War started in that same month, the Swedish"
  • fleet was mobilised with Oscar II as flagship --> "fleet was mobilised with her as flagship"
  • with the newer coastal defence ship Sverige --> "with the newer coastal defence ship HSwMS Sverige"
  • the German dreadnought battleships Rheinland and Westfalen --> "the German dreadnought battleships SMS Rheinland and Westfalen"
  • Oscar II was brought back into service in 1929 --> "She was brought back into service in 1929"
  • served as part of the Swedish Navy during World War II --> "served as part of the Swedish Navy during the Second World War"
  • Prince Gustaf Adolf is overlinked.
  • home after he died in an air crash at Copenhagen Airport --> "home after he died in a KLM Douglas DC-3 air crash at Copenhagen Airport"?
  • The ordered part is missing in the body while in the infobox says "23 September 1903"?
  • Cost is also missing in the body?
  • Laid down is also missing in the body?
  • Add first decommissioned (September 1918) and second commissioned in 1929 into the infobox.
  • 4,584 full load in the body vs 4,584 deep load?
  • Link both tons, normal, full load (or deep load; per above), shp, kW and are there links for the guns in the infobox?
  • Mention in the lead that she was decommissioned in September 1918 and recommissioned in 1929.

Phew, that was a lot. I think that's anything from me. No worries this is normal for new people in ARC and FAC. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:29, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. This is very comprehensive and incredibly helpful. I have amended the article following your suggestions. Can you please explain more about your ideas of subsections? There was an Armament subsection before but that was removed as part of the GA review. I have amended the tonnage but the mix between metric and imperial measures seems endemic in the literature. For example, many articles seem to cite different measures even for guns with the main battery often in inches and smaller weapons in millimetres, and speeds seem to be usually in knots. I have seen editors disagree about the gender of ships so have adjusted the grammar to avoid pronouns. I could not find wikipedia pages for the guns or full load so those remain unlinked. I could not find out how to add a second decommissioning date so I have not included the last point. simongraham (talk) 07:16, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. This is a really great learning experience. The article is now updated. simongraham (talk) 22:19, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
G'day simongraham, just a note that CPA-5 is on a wikibreak. I will just check to see if all his points have been addressed and make a note about that. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, for the closing coord, I have checked CPA-5's comments, have made a couple of tweaks where I can see what he meant, and I consider that his comments have now been addressed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:12, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No joy on any better description on the armor details in any English-language source that I can access.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:49, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for looking. simongraham (talk) 23:58, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

[edit]

I looked at this pretty comprehensively at GAN, and only have a few suggested tweaks here or there:

Lead
Body
  • "Äran-class coastal defence ship", needs to be hyphenated as it is a composite adjective
  • for the power conversion, use lk=on to link kW
  • "Three 37 mm (1.5 in) M/98 guns"
  • where were the TTs located?
  • "It was 150 mm (5.9 in) thick amidships"
  • the armour info could do with a bit more granularity, for example, what parts of the deck were 66 mm and what parts 22 mm? Same with the turret armour: front, sides, back, roof?
  • for "flying the flag" perhaps link Goodwill tour, or perhaps Parsecboy has a better idea?
  • suggest "Due to the country's neutrality in the war, the vessel spent much of the war practicing firing and damage control."
  • "for a peaceful settlement that resulted in Germany gaining possession of the islands."
  • link Sweden during World War II for "as Sweden once again remained neutral"

That's all I could find this time around. Nice job. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:24, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What's the status here, @Simongraham:? I can't tell if you've responded to PM's comments.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:48, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, @Parsecboy:, @Peacemaker67: and @Sturmvogel 66:. These are all really helpful. The edits have been done, although I do not have any more granular information on the armour so any information that you can contribute would be most appreciated. simongraham (talk) 05:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All good from me, supporting. For FAC, it would be good if some additional details about the armour could be located and added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Simongraham: Be advised that most reviewers only watchlist the review and not the article, so be sure to post any updates on the review page. Lemme see if I can find anything on the ship's armor and then I'll do my own review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. simongraham (talk) 23:58, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sturmvogel_66

[edit]
  • In the infobox:
    • what kind of length is used? overall, between perpendiculars?
    • To minimize the size of the infobox, you don't need to list manufacturer or designation of propulsion equipment or weapons, just caliber/type unless for things like Yarrow boilers where they're a specific type of boiler design used by that builder.
    • Remember that the infobox is supposed to be a summary so delete four-cylinder
    • Link triple expansion engine, being sure to tell the reader that it's a steam engine.
    • Put the draught in ft and inches just like the rest of the conversions.
    • 450 mm does not equal 18 inches; ass a |1 to the template
    • You'll need to link all of the terms in the armour section. See the FA-class article French battleship Bouvet for one way to do that. More later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:04, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you. I have updated the infobox using Bouvet as a template. Unfortunately, there are no wikipages for the original armament and I could not see a standard naming convention for Swedish naval guns so I have not created links for these, but am very happy to be corrected. simongraham (talk) 18:35, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]
  • "the ship mounted a main battery of two 210 mm (8.3 in) Bofors guns mounted separately fore and aft" Would it be possible to avoid using "mounted" twice in one clause?
  • "During the First World War the ship was based at the Åland Islands between 19 February and 23 April 1918 supporting the Swedish invasion". This gives the unfortunate impression that the First World War lasted from 19 February to 23 April 1918.
  • "see what future ships should be requested to meet the country's needs". "be requested" is odd phraseology. Perhaps 'were required'?
  • "a vessel like that being constructed abroad". Consider "like that" → 'similar to those'.
  • "Two tubes for 450 mm (18 in) torpedoes were fitted below the waterline." Is it known where?
  • "with armour 100 mm thick". Any reason why this is not converted?
  • "visiting ports in many countries, as well as". "as well as" → 'including'.

A fine piece of work. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:53, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you. That is very kind. These are very good suggestions. Unfortunately I know no more about where the torpedo tubes were apart from below the waterline.
Ah well. If it's not in the sources, it can't be helped.

The conversion is omitted because it is already mentioned in the previous sentence. Do you think it needs to be added?

There is a school of thought that once a specific measurement has been converted in an article it doesn't need to be repeated, so that is fine.

simongraham (talk) 23:58, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:11, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Indy beetle

[edit]

Ah, the Scandinavian coastal defence ships, very underrated! Glad to see a good article on one. My comments:

  • The commission looked at developments in other countries, particularly the escalating Anglo-German naval arms race, and decided that instead of creating a vessel like that being constructed abroad, Is this an allusion to battleships?
  • However, as well as both sides in the Russian Civil War, Germany was also interested in gaining the islands as part of a wider strategy to control the Baltic Sea and sent a substantial fleet as well. I think this means that the belligerents in the Russian Civil War were interested in the Islands. Perhaps split into two sentences or revise for clarity.
  • Sometimes people take portions or mementos of large ships (bells, steering wheels, propellers, artillery pieces) and save them for memorials and whatnot. Is it known if any pieces of the ship were saved for historical preservation after it was scrapped?

-Indy beetle (talk) 07:32, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Parsecboy

[edit]

I see you've gotten a few reviews lately, so some of these points may be redundant:

  • The design section is a bit long - I generally prefer to break it up with subsections where appropriate (as in Sturmvogel's example Bouvet)
  • Why do you have some modernization info in the design section and more in the service section? I've found that listing a bunch of technical details in the service section bogs down the narrative and it's better to put them in the design section. I'd combine all of the technical details into a modifications/refits/etc. subsection and then just mention the refits in passing in the service section (HMS Ramillies (07) is an example of what I mean).
  • "the ship saw action" and later "but saw limited action" - in this context, to "see action" means to actively participate in a battle. Did Oscar II conduct any bombardments during the Aalands operation in 1918? And I'm guessing the second one should be "but saw no action", as I can't recall the Swedish Navy being actively involved in any actions in the Baltic during WWII
  • " finally departing on 23 April.[25]." - there's a stray period after the footnote
  • "apart from a brief period at the end of 1923 and start of 1924" - I'd kick this clause to the end of the sentence and shorten it slightly to "apart from a brief period in late 1923 and early 1924"
  • Clarify what country Portsmouth is in - lots of people have poor geographical knowledge
  • I came across this article, which has some details on the ship's post-decommissioning uses
  • Warship 1996 has an article on the Swedish coastal defense ships that may be of use - I think @Sturmvogel 66: has a copy of the book and might be able to get you scans. Parsecboy (talk) 09:23, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/HSwMS_Oscar_II&oldid=978100335"