Talk:Kronan (ship)

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.

Peter ^Isotalo 19:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kronan (ship)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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)

666 years?

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

666 years?

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