Talk:Kronan (ship)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ealdgyth - Talk 13:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this article shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Just a few spots of unclear prose and a couple of spots that could use conversion of units

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Specific Concerns:

• 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)?
• Fleet expansion:
  • 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.
• Design:
  • "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."?
• Armament:
  • "Guns were classed by how heavy cannonballs they fired, …" this is awkward, perhaps "Guns were classed by the weight of the cannonballs they fired, …"?
• Construction:
  • 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?
• Archaeology:
  • 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. Peter ^Isotalo 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)