Wikipedia:Peer review/Kronan (ship)/archive1

Kronan (ship)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I put the article together back when I was in my maritime archaeology phase. It's not as extensive as Vasa (ship) or Mary Rose, which kinda reflects that Kronan isn't as notable. But I also played it safe by nominating it for GAC rather than FAC. So quite simply: what, if anything, would this article need to pass as an FA?

Peter ^Isotalo 12:47, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

A few copyediting comments, not a complete review: - Dank (push to talk)

• "lasted 1668–72": lasted from 1668 to 1672
• "delayed on account of difficulties": delayed by difficulties
• "She began to founder, her powder magazine ignited": comma splice
• "She began to founder, her powder magazine ignited and exploded, blowing off most of the bow structure. This caused her to quickly sink.": She quickly sank after her powder magazine ignited and exploded, blowing off most of the bow structure.
• "along with valuable equipment": What kind of equipment? - Dank (push to talk) 16:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Fixed.[1] Thanks for the recommendations!

Peter ^Isotalo 18:17, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I've looked over the parts I feel qualified to comment on (mainly background and her military career). Some comments:

1. The background chapter seems to place unnecessary emphasis on the war of 1658, while there could be a stronger emphasis on the importance on the fleet for keeping contact with the overseas possessions.

2. This is minor, but if the name should be translated, it should be in the lede and not in the Military Career section?

3. The text can give the impression that the fleet was under the command of Claes Uggla in the battle of Öland. In fact, it was Lorentz Creutz (he is mentioned as Admiral of the Realm, but not that he was the actual commander). His inexperience should perhaps also be stressed more.

Andejons (talk) 19:07, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments! I'm looking at 1 and 3, but I'll just comment quickly on 2: the translation are in the first note. I'm personally not a big fan of cluttering the lead with translations and such.

Peter ^Isotalo 19:32, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

1) The war of 1658 was the immediate background for the Scanian War and the strategic position vs Denmark. Hence the attention. I'll look into covering the overall strategic necessity of a strong fleet. I wouldn't really compare it with a political background, though. It's more of an underlying issue for any state with overseas territories.

3) I've added some more info on Creutz and his appointment, as well as his lack of experience based on Glete. Check it out.

Peter ^Isotalo 18:10, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

1) I have nothing against relating that Denmark had lost a lot of territory and were looking for revenge, and the part about English and Dutch power politics is relevant also for this conflict. What I am questioning is the necessity for the details of the actual campaigns. (small quibble: 1650 is actually the point immediately after the zenith, which was in 1658). I'm also not sure if England and the Netherlands actually intervened on the behalf of Denmark in the first war (the Netherlands supported Denmark in the second part of the war). I think it could be improved by cutting some material, and trying to focus on the final outcome (Charles X Gustafs marsch across the belts is impressive, but not really relevant for Kronan). It should also be remembered that the Netherlands and England was probably rather pleased with Scania in Swedish hands, as it weakened the Danish grip on trade (cf. their actions during the Great Northern War).

3) It's a clear improvement, but I think it would be helpful to note under "Military career" at which point Creautz took personal command. As it is now, it says that Uggla took command sometime around 1675-1676, and there is a bit about Creutz having troubles with his officers, but it is not clear that he was actually with the squadron at this point.

Andejons (talk) 20:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

1) Yeah, the chronology was a bit off; fixed just now.[2] I think it makes more sense now, including the intervention from other powers. As a historical background, I don't think it would really benefit by cutting merely a sentence or two. The power shift between Denmark and Sweden is pretty relevant in the context of military and political history.

2) What exactly do you mean by "took personal command"? Do you mean acting as captain of Kronan?

Peter ^Isotalo 07:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

1. I think it would be enough to say that Sweden had in two wars tried to eradicate Denmark, which had ultimately failed due to dutch intervention (the English intervention, if one can speak of such, was AFAIK purely diplomatic), but that they left Sweden in possession of several provinces. The focus of the article is after all on a single ship, so the background should cover the general situation for navies (already there), Sweden's navy in particular (not mentioned), and finally, why Kronan went to war (which I think could be done just as well with fewer words).

3. I mean when he started commanding the fleet in person, rather than being merely the appointed highest officer.

Andejons (talk) 19:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

1) I'm not entirely sure it's all that excessive, but I'll keep your comments in mind for a future FAC. If the issue is raised there as well, I'll have a crack at condensing the info.

3) You mean when he crossed the line between strategic to operational command?

Peter ^Isotalo 13:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

3) Yes, you could phrase it like that.

Andejons (talk) 19:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I can't recall reading a discussion about that. I think it touches on the issue of command structure and hierarchies in the 17th century compared to modern military standards. In short, I think they were far more diffuse. I'll see if I can find anything about it.

Thank you very much for the input.

Peter ^Isotalo 20:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Some random observations

1. This article reads like an essay. That's usually not a problem, but I find some of the excursions quite tiresome. The historical background is discussed repetitively in three different places. I would say there is some potential for condensing and shortening.
2. I remember a discussion a few months ago on the WPSHIPS talk page whether to use she or it when referring to ships. The outcome was inconclusive but most editors preferred consistency within the article. In the lede Kronan is referred to as she, under Military career she becomes it.
3. The article mentions that “Kronan has become the most widely publicized shipwreck in the Baltic after Vasa”. In the bibliography section, however, there are no publication after 2009. (BTW I came across Jan Glete Swedish Naval Administration, 1521-1721, ISBN 9789004179165, which discusses Kronan among others.)
4. Wikilinks should be reviewed. E.g. Brandenburg links to the present-day federal state of Germany, whereas Brandenburg-Prussia might be more helpful. Also, the link to displacement makes the following definition superfluous.

So far for now. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 11:16, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, interesting comments:

1) Can you point to the paragraphs where you believe there is too much repetition going on? Essay-wise, is there anything else you feel is problematic? I should note that I prefer articles with engaging language, but without tipping over towards POV.

2) Good point. I think I've rooted I managed to root the inconsistent "it"s out now.

3) I'm not sure I understand the point of number 3. How is the most recent source in the list of refs relevant to claim you're quoting? Regarding Glete (2010), I'll add it to "Suggested reading" and see if it has anything more to offer. Thanks for the tip.

4) Also a good point. I'll look into it.

Thank you very much for those not-all-too-random suggestions. :-)

Peter ^Isotalo 17:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

ad 1) The chapters on Historical context and on Military career overlap significantly. I see the need to give some background information on the Scanian War, but this seems a bit excessive to me.

ad 3) I am just wondering whether there are more recent publications available. I only came across one that meets the criteria for reliable sources (Glete). Einarsson's blog on the diving expeditions in the last few years doesn't, though. Unfortunately, my Swedish is not good enough to check for sources, but I presume there are more recent publications available.

ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 16:26, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

1) I can't quite see where the overlap is if we're talking chronology. "Historical context" (renamed it "background" just now) covers background events until the outbreak of war, "Military career" covers everything after that. Is it the amount of detail?

3) Glete (2010) has some details on Kronan that I added. There's not really that much, though, since he's focused on organizational and administrative history. It's far more relevant to Swedish navy. I'm checking with Kalmar County Museum on getting hold of the two archaeological reports that have been published since the article was written. I don't think that much has happened, though. There's Under däck: Mary Rose - Vasa - Kronan ("Below deck") by Villner (2012) about life on board. I'll see if might have something worth adding. Other than that, I don't really know of anything of note that has been written specifically on Kronan the last few years. We're not talking Vasa, after all. :-)

Peter ^Isotalo 18:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying earlier, but I was busy in real-life. So far, I don't see anything terribly amiss. It's only that I'm slightly irritated by going back and forth between the grand picture and detailed information on the ship. The difference to the Vasa article, which uses the same structure, is that Vasa had virtually no service record, whereas Kronan sank in combat. It's probably just my personal taste that I would prefer concentrating on the ship rather than the era.

Looking over the article more critically, I picked up a few minor issues:

• The 10 percent loss of naval manpower mentioned in the lede — is this figure based on the total complement or just the sailors?
• When referring to the finding the wreck for the second time, relocated is probably not the best choice of words. If I am not mistaken, this would mean the wreck was moved from one place to another. I gather from the rest of the article, that the wreck is mostly still in place and only artefacts have been "relocated" to the museum.
• In the last paragraph of "Historical background" it says at the end of June a Danish army landed in Scania. That's June 1676, isn't it?
• In the section Causes of sinking it says "The direct cause for the sinking of Kronan was instability and inappropriate handling in rough weather." I would say, the direct causes of her sinking where the fact that she made water and lost her bow in an explosion. The reasons for this to happen may have included a general instability of the ship and incompetence on behalf of her commander. There was - hypothetically speaking - a chance (however slim) that Kronan could regain her balance up to the moment when her bow was blown of.
• Finally, I am not sure whether use of % is appropriate here. WP:MOS is not very clear about when to use it and when not. I would prefer spelling it out, but again, that may just be my personal taste again.

ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 15:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I made some reductions and carted off material to battle of Öland where I think it'll be more at home. I think the information as it stands now is reasonably focused on the ship while still providing a decent amount of background.

• 10% (or percent (-; ) was my exaggeration. It was the percentage of the active battle fleet if combined with the losses of Svärdet, so I tweaked it to be less precise.
• "Relocated" is now "rediscovered".
• Yeah, the Danes landed in 1676, but that's out with the rehaul of the background info.
• Point taken about causes. Fixed it.
• I like "%" myself so I'll keep your comment in mind and see if others object as well.

Once again, thank you for taking the time to review the article.

Peter ^Isotalo 14:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC)