Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Öland

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Assessment
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:16, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Öland edit

Nominator(s): Peter Isotalo

This is an outgrowth of my work on Kronan (ship) (currently at FAC) and I'm would like to bring this to FA-status as well. It just passed a GA review and I got the recommendation to request an A-Class review as a preliminary step to FAC.

The battle of Öland is probably best known for the sinking of Kronan, but its also interesting since it was subject to an official inquiry on the Swedish side and a dispute among the commanders on the allied side, both of which are well-documented and researched. I've tried my best to put the battle into historical context, both militarily and politically.

Peter Isotalo 20:25, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

  • Hi Peter, welcome to A-class. I see you're an old hand around FAC, but I have some problems with for instance Battle_of_Öland#State of the fleet, the same problems as I have with the same section in your article currently at FAC. My questions concern this paragraph: "... Previously, naval tactics were based on individual ships or small units within the frame of what has later been called the melee tactic. Decisive action in naval engagements had been achieved through boarding, but after the middle of the 17th century tactical theory focused more on disabling or sinking an opponent through superior firepower from a distance. This entailed major changes in doctrine, shipbuilding, and professionalism in European navies from the 1650s and onwards. The line of battle favored very large ships that were steady sailers and could hold the line in the face of heavy fire. This new style of warfare was marked by a successively stricter organization. The new tactics also depended on an increased disciplining of society and the demands of powerful centralized governments that could maintain large, permanent, loyal fleets led by a professional officer corps. Battle formations became standardized, worked out from mathematically calculated, ideal models.": What's a "melee tactic" ... is that the same thing as hand-to-hand melee? What's a frame of a melee tactic? What does it mean to achieve "decisive action"? What changes were there in doctrine, shipbuilding, and professionalism? What's a "steady sailer" ... does it have bigger or more effective sails, is the hull more streamlined, is it more stable (with a lower metacentric height), is it more seaworthy, or are you saying it could stay afloat after taking a heavy pounding? What does "successively stricter organization" mean? How do you discipline a society? If a battle line is just a straight line, why do you need higher mathematics to calculate an "ideal model"? - Dank (push to talk) 12:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since it's basically the same text as in Kronan (ship), I'll try to deal with the issue there and then transfer the result to this article. I've tried to take your comments here into consideration in the latest fixes to the Kronan-article. If anything is still unclear, just comment at the FAC. Peter Isotalo 16:04, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Now that I'm supporting at FAC, I'll come back and review this one do some copyediting when it's close to promotion. - Dank (push to talk) 19:43, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I copyedited the article per my copyediting disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 04:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments: G'day, interesting article. It generally looks good to me, but it's not really a topic I'm comfortable reviewing, as I don't know anything about it really. Anyway, I have a couple of minor suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 11:01, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • is this a typo: "between Dernmark" --> "between Denmark"?
    • "20 ships under admiral Niels Juel", as the rank appears to be a title here, it should probably be capitalised, e.g. "Admiral Niels Juel"
    • in the Forces section, does ref # 37 cover all of the entries? If so, I suggest tweaking the stem sentence to make this clearer.
    • in the References, you appear to be using slightly different styles for some of the entries. For instance, "Rodger, Nicholas" v. "Goran Rystad" ("surname, first name" v. "first name surname"). Additionally, compare the way the years are presented. It might be easier for the sake of consistency to use a template like {{cite book}} or something similar. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:01, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for the pointers. I believe this[1] should address your concerns. Regarding "Forces", isn't this what the note says? If it's unclear, how do you feel it should be clarified? Peter Isotalo 16:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • G'day again, Peter, your changes look good (I made a minor tweak to the References, though, please check you are happy with that). Regarding the above comment, I'd suggest tweaking the stem sentence to introduce the list. For example, instead of just "The numbers in parentheses indicates the number of guns for each ship.[37]", something like this might be better: "The following list details the forces that took part in the battle. Note: the numbers in parentheses indicate the number of guns for each ship.[37]" AustralianRupert (talk) 10:30, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • typo "indicates" -> "indicate" in this case "numbers" and "indicates" doesn't work together. "the numbers...indicate"
    • in the citations, "Glete (1993), s. 173–78" --> what does "s" mean here? Should it be "pp."?
    • in the citations, "Barfod (1997), s. 54–55" --> as above, what does "s" mean here? Should it be "pp."? AustralianRupert (talk) 10:30, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fixed. It was just the Swedish abbreviations (sida) from the sv.wiki original that I forgot to convert. Peter Isotalo 07:54, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Looks good in terms of sources, although I'm more solid on land history in this period, rather than naval. And it's always great to see more articles on the 17th century! Copyediting points, in the main, follow:

  • "Just as the battle began " I'd have added a comma after this
  • "and after the loss of a second admiral," "and after this loss of" would make this slightly clearer.
  • "Dano-Norwegian naval supremacy" When I first read this I thought I'd missed the Norwegian role in the battle; don't know if there's any easy to explain this?
  • "The move was bold royal ambition in a highly militarized society geared for almost constant warfare, a fiscal-military state. Disbanding its armies meant paying outstanding wages, so there was an underlying incentive to keep hostilities alive and let soldiers live off enemy lands and plunder. " - these sentences jarred a bit. I know what each bit means, but I couldn't see how the royal ambition linked to the problems of the fiscal-military 17th century state. If we mean that King Charles couldn't afford to demobilise his armies, so was forced to continue the war on Denmark, fair enough - but is there an easier way to word it?
  • "and by September 1675 Denmark" - I'd have put commas around "by September 1675"
  • "tactical theory focused more" - do we mean tactical theory? (i.e. was tactical practice different?)
  • "The new tactics also depended on powerful, centralized governments that could maintain large, permanent fleets" - minor, but don't we mean "governments being able to maintain..."? The dependence is on the maintainance of the fleets, not the governments.
  • "The increased power of the state at the expense of individual landowners led to the expansion of armies and navies" - are you happy that the causal direction is just one-way? (i.e. that the expansion of armies didn't encourage the state to increase its power?) I may be out of date, but I'm sure I've read authors suggesting the latter as well as the former, e.g. Anderson's "War and Society in Europe of the Old Regime".
  • "In late fall of 1675" - I can't remember if the article is using US or BritEng. If the former, pls ignore. I'm assuming that we don't have a specific month (otherwise WP:Season would apply)
  • "and loss of vital equipment" - "and the loss"
  • "On May 25–26" - elsewhere you're using "25 May" etc.
  • " the two fleets fought a largely indecisive" - is "largely" necessary here?
  • "Creutz was in conflict with his officers after Bornholm" - how about "Creutz argued with his officers..."?
  • "After the unsuccessful action" - I'd have put a comma after action
  • "as a result of poor communication and signaling" - more out of curiosity, but how did they communicate other than using signaling?
  • Worth checking the linking of a couple of nautical terms: e.g ."mainmast", "gunport".
  • "The battle of Öland " - capitalisation of battle
  • " following the death of its commander by disease." - "from disease"? Hchc2009 (talk) 15:05, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the comments. I think this should address your concerns.[2] Lemme know if anything i still unclear.
    • Regarding growth of armies and increased power to centralized governments, I'm pretty sure Glete doesn't make much of a distinction between military and political elite. It might be more relevant for states that relied more on trade for wealth, but this isn't really the case with 17th century Sweden. It's more of an issue of the crown growing in power at the expense of the nobility.
    • Denmark-Norway is the formal, "official" term since the two were technically separate kingdoms. However, Danish hegemony was never in doubt. The king and the nobility were Danish, not Norwegian. As far as I understand, Norway didn't have an independent foreign policy or anything like that. Overall, the position of Norway was more akin to that of Finland under Swedish rule. Peter Isotalo 16:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

In the map, dates are of acquisition, and in brackets are of loss. So what does the date 1621 mean for Riga (is the date of loss just omitted?) and the dates 1629-35 for 3 other towns.
The Swedish attack on Denmark threatened English interests, and an English fleet was sent to support Sweden. This seems illogical.
"Charles' plans were thwarted" What plans? The attempt to crush Denmark? This could be clearer.
Why was it a high point to join an anti-French alliance when shortly afterwards Sweden allied with France?
"Denmark, the Dutch Republic, and the Holy Roman Empire were all at war against Sweden and France" Separately or as an alliance?
"from the 1650s and onwards" I would leave out the word 'and'.
The Swedish side had problems" Sounds a bit odd to me. Why not just 'The Swedes'?
"Swedish Pomerania, its holdings on the Baltic coast" I am not sure whether holdings is the right word.
Creutz argued with this officers after Bornholm" his officers?
i would link flag officer.
"were captured by Juel and his subordinate on Anna Sophia". Is there a reason his subordinate (first lieutenant?) is mentioned?
"The Swedish fleet had suffered a stinging blow" A bit colloquial. I would prefer a major blow.
"He claimed that if he had gotten proper support" Gotten is an Americanism which does not sound right to British ears. How about received?
Note 38 is not referenced.
These are all minor points - a very good article. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:01, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think these edits should address all the points made.
Elbing, Pillau and Memel were very temporary acquisitions as far as I understand. The year span is simply when they were occupied. The Riga date I'm not sure of. It might have something to do with it's status as a free city within Livonia or something like it. Not 100% sure.
The anti-French Triple Alliance was a success because it allied Sweden with several other states, ei a diplomatic success. Do you feel it needs any clarifications?
Note 38 is just a clarifying comment. The entire list of ships is already covered by note 37.
Peter Isotalo 07:54, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note to nominator @Peter Isotalo: do you feel you have addressed all the above points, or are you still working on it? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed most of the issues, I believe, but not all. Work is taking up a lot of time right now. I'll deal with by the end of next week.
Peter Isotalo 08:52, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support and minor comments.

  • "the Dutch who were in fierce competition with England at the time)." - orphan bracket.
  • A high point joining an anti-French alliance. As Sweden changed sides shortly afterwards I think "a high point" is better deleted as confusing. You have already said it was a foreign policy success.
  • There is a stub article on Battle of Öland (1563). Maybe the hatnote should be to a new disambig page for the 3 battles.

Dudley Miles (talk) 14:12, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This should deal with that. Thanks-a-plenty for the review! Peter Isotalo 15:22, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Support
    • No dab links [3] (no action req'd).
    • External links check out [4] (no action req'd).
    • Some of the images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding it [5] (suggestion only - not an ACR requirement).
    • Images all seem to be PD / free and have the req'd information (no action req'd)
    • Most captions look fine, one minor issue:
      • "The view shows the Swedish as a bustling port, and in the foreground the...", specifically "the Swedish" - is this a typo? Should it be "Stockholm"?
    • One duplicate link to be removed per WP:REPEATLINK
      • Niels Juel
    • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd)
    • The Earwig Tool reveal no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing [6] (no action req'd).
    • Losses for each side appear in the infobox but don't appear to be spelt out in the article itself (unless I missed it).
    • Prose seems a little awkward here: "Uggla himself drowned while escaping the burning ship, and after this loss of a second admiral, the rest of the Swedish fleet fled in disorder." Consider instead something like: "Uggla himself drowned while escaping the burning ship, and with his loss the rest of the Swedish fleet fled in disorder." (suggestion only)
    • Also awkward: "The Danish King Christian V was able to ship troops over to Swedish soil...", consider instead: "The Danish King Christian V was able to ship troops to Sweden..."
    • There is something a little informal sounding about this wording: "The Dutch intervened in 1658 by sending a fleet to stop the attempt to crush Denmark...", specifically "to crush Denmark". Perhaps consider something like: "The Dutch intervened in 1658 by sending a fleet to stop any movement against Denmark..." or something like that.
    • This could possibly be reworded: "The southern Baltic became a strategically important scene for both Denmark and Sweden..." specially not sure about "scene", which doesn't quite seem like the right word and may be redundant at any rate. Consider perhaps: "The southern Baltic became strategically important for both Denmark and Sweden..."
    • Suggest wikilinking "lee side" to explain to readers who don't know what that means.
    • Regard note #1 "See Jan Glete (2002) War and the State in Early Modern Europe: Spain, the Dutch Republic and Sweden as Fiscal-Military States, 1500–1600. Routledge, London. ISBN 0-415-22645-7 for an in-depth study." Shouldn't a short citation be used here?
    • Suggest adding OCLCs to the works in the ref section that are too old to have ISBNs. These can be found through WorldCat.org (suggestion only).
    • Otherwise this is an excellent article in my opinion. Anotherclown (talk) 07:52, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you very much for the pointers. And the compliment. Here's the implementation of most of suggestions.[7] And a few comments:
      • Losses aren't specifically spelt out in one place, but they're provided in context. Manpower losses aren't specified in any sources, actually. Only the manpower losses from Kronan, Svärdet and Churprindsen are actually specified in sources. But now that you bring it up, I'm a bit unsure about the actual number of ships sunk. I think I might have forgotten to specify some of them. I'll check my sources in a few days.
      • I like the "crush" part myself. I feel it's more dramatic prose than an informal thang, which to me is valid as long as it's not obvious POV.
      • Glete (2002) is really just suggested reading. The political background doesn't rely specifically on him since the fiscal-military state is a pretty broad concept. Peter Isotalo 06:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Battle_of_Öland&oldid=791880416"