This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Shouldnt the title be Regalskeppet Kronan? --Dahlis 17:25, 2005 August 30 (UTC)
-Why? Regalskepp is just what it was. The page on HMS Victory isn't labelled "Ship-of-the-line Victory" for example.
But the HMS Victory page is named exactly that, "HMS Victory". The name "Regalskeppet Kronan" would follow the same convention. (And yes, I know that this contradicts wiki guidelines, but these are very US-centric.)
Yes, but HMS is a prefix; "regalskeppet" is not. Equivalent to "Regalskappet Kronan" would be "Ship-of-the-line HMS Victory".
This seems to be a rather widespread misunderstanding, especially among Swedish contributors, but regalskepp (lit. "regal ship") is not a specific type of ship, but rather a very specific kind of classification. The closest equivalent would be the first-rate ship within the rating system of the Royal Navy. Of what I've understood of ship construction, most regalskepp built in the 17th century would probably be best described as being a transitional design between a galleon and a ship of the line.
I have added coordinates to the page, based on the Kronan museum website which describes its location as "4 nautical miles due east of the church at Hulterstad". I translated that into 7.4 km and then added approximate coordinates. - Gump Stump (talk) 07:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I changed the coordinates to the equivalent of 3.4 nautical miles east of Hulterstad (6.3 km), according to the most recent journal paper about the Kronan: "A cross-staff from the wreck of the Kronan (1676)", by L. Einarsson and W.F.J. Morzer-Bruyns, International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, 2003, v.32, p.53-60. - Gump Stump (talk) 08:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Picky (and not required) but could we have the date of the engraving in the infobox caption?
Picky again, but either go with 16XX-XX or 16XX-16XX, it's a consistency issue.
Are you using Day-Month-Year (as in the lead) or Month-Day-Year (as in the Historical context section)?
The first three sentences of "fleet expansion" don't flow that well, honestly. Is there a better way to integrate that second sentence into the thoughts of the first and third? Right now it kinda sticks out and doesn't seem to connect well to the other two sentences.
"When Kronan was built, the English manner, with a more rounded bottom and greater draft, giving it a sturdier frame and more stability." something seems missing in this sentence, but I'm not sure what it is. did you mean "When Kronan was built, Sweden was moving to the English manner, with… "?
"… since the ship's exact dimensions are diffuse." is a bit obtuse - did you mean "… since the ship's exact dimensions are not recorded exactly."?
"Guns were classed by how heavy cannonballs they fired, …" this is awkward, perhaps "Guns were classed by the weight of the cannonballs they fired, …"?
Can we have a convert template on the 7-10 hectares of oak forest?
Can we get a citation for the opinion of Kurt Lundregen on how many trees were needed?
Could we get a conversion on the depth and location of the wreck?
REALLY nice work, Peter. Just a few little niggles, and some things that'd be nice, but not required for GA. I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for taking on the review and for the constructive criticism. Your positive comments are also much appreciated. I believe I've fixed all the concerns I have stricken above. Some of your suggestions for changes were quite fitting, so I used those as they were. I inserted all conversions, but I'm not a fan of templates, so I did the conversion without them.
I've left your remark on "Fleet expansion" unstricken, though I made an attempt at fixing it. I'm too close to the action to be able to tell what's clear or not, so I think it's better if you okayed it first. PeterIsotalo 12:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Looks great! Again, it's a wonderful article, will we be seeing it at FAC? Passing it now. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
In the first paragraph, the article states "after 666 years, the ship foundered..." I think there is an error. Since I do not know anything about this, would someone please research and correct this?MacEachan1 (talk) 04:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)MacEachan1
Is the first part of the historical background section really necessary? I feel like if people wanted to know about Sweden in the 1600s they would go to Swedish empire and not an article about a ship. Brutannica (talk) 23:45, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
It's an historical article about a fairly notable warship. A political historical context of the conflicts it was intended to fight in is very relevant in my view. Readers who aren't interested can always just skip those two paragraphs.
Swedish Navy is capitalized in its own article, but "navy" is lowercase in this one. Is one or the other wrong? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 03:16, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
There was a discussion about this in the FAC. The linked article is about the modern organization that has a proper name. This is about the early modern predecessor, a very different entity that doesn't really have a proper name like the Royal Navy.
If they're "very different entit[ies]", then isn't the link misleading? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 06:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
That goes for all navies with a long history, I suppose. We don't have articles like Tudor navy for Swedish naval history, though. So it's either the modern navy (which also covers some history) or redlinking. Piping to the former seems like a better choice than simply redlinking.
Well, if the article covers both, then shouldn't the article be downcased, with only the portions that cover the modern navy using the capitalized version? Something should be done, anyways—it's confusing. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 07:02, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Swedish Navy is about the modern navy first and foremost, just like Sweden is mostly about the modern country, even if it's technically the same state as in 1676 (or 1523). That doesn't mean we refer to it as "Swedish Empire" as a synonym. I'm not a fan of assigning "official names" when those names aren't used consistently in the literature.
Btw, If you ask WP:MILHIST's naval taskforce about this, they'll likely say "capitalize everything, everywhere". But that's because something like 98% of their work is on modern history.