Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Vasa (ship)

Vasa (ship)

The Vasa is one of the oldest preserved warships in the world, and me and User:Peter Isotalo have been working on it to bring it to FAC, with GA (it is currently a candidate) as an intermediate goal. Feedback from the milhist experts here would be much appreciated on how to improve it further. henrik•talk 09:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill Lokshin

Very good article, overall; a few suggestions, though:

✓ The bulleted list in the "Armament" section may be better as prose or in a floated box of some sort.
There are some statistics in the "Ornamentation" section that need to be cited.
The "See also" section should be eliminated; if the terms can't be linked to sensibly in the article, they typically don't need to be linked at all.
✓ "Sources" should probably be "References".
✓ Some of the external links seem a bit questionable.

Kirill 18:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The See also-links are highly relevant to the topic at hand, namely naval warfare (especially that of the 17th century) and marine archaeology. Trying to work them into the article would needlessly burden the prose. I'm all for cleaning up link farms, but a mere five links doesn't exactly smack of excess.

Peter ^Isotalo 21:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's see:

Maritime archeology - could this be easily linked under, say, "marine archaeologists" in the lead.
Kronan - this, as the two other ship links, is a reasonable "see also"-type link; but I wonder if it might not be better off in a navigation template of some sort, given that all the ships will be interlinked this way.
Mary Rose
Batavia
Royal Swedish Navy - this definitely ought to be linked the first time the Swedish navy is mentioned.

Is any of that reasonable? Kirill 22:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, they're much appreciated. I've taken the liberty of marking the suggestions that (hopefully) have been addressed with a ✓ the same way I saw User:Oberiko do. henrik•talk 21:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since when has there been consensus that "See also"-sections should be eliminated or that they can never repeat a link buried in prose? I've certainly heard the complaint before, but I just don't understand what the point would be when dealing with an example that has only a handful of both useful and relevant links.

Peter ^Isotalo 18:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That has been my impression of what FAC reviewers prefer to see; obviously, if you don't intend to take the article to FAC, then this may not be particularly relevant to you.

(Personally, I don't like "See also" sections; they give the impression of material that ought to be mentioned in the article but isn't, reducing the sense of the article as a completed piece. But that's more personal preference than anything else.) Kirill 00:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is actually the reason we have "See also"-links; to include linkage that would simply be awkward or irrelevant in prose and that can lead the interested reader to other related articles. The "complete" article would probably be the perfect article.

Peter ^Isotalo 13:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]