Talk:Dano-Swedish War (1658–1660)

Importance Rating
I find the mid importance rating very low as the treaty of 1660 established political borders between Denmark, Sweden and Norway which have lasted to the present day. This alone should qualify it for a top importance rating. I am changing it for WikiProject Denmark. Perhaps someone at WikiProject Sweden will consider it as well. (Ice Explorer (talk) 11:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC))

Deluge
A very interesting article, but it needs to be tied to Deluge (history) (currently it doesn't even link to it!). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * True, this article focuses almost exclusively on the Swedish-Danish campaign. I'm a little bit unsure on how to best best incorporate the Deluge and the Polish-Lithuanian view (as well as the other participants) here. For now I added just a simple mention in the background, but I'm sure that's not enough!


 * In any case, our coverage of this conflict is a bit spread out: Currently there are five articles covering different aspects: The Deluge (history), Russo–Swedish War (1656–1658), Dano-Swedish War (1657-1658), Dano-Swedish War (1658-1660), Dutch-Swedish War (1658-1660) (I've recently redirected the last one to this article) as well as Northern Wars as some kind of overview attempt.


 * I was planning on improving Northern Wars after this one, flesh out it with a wider view of the broader background and participation of all belligerents and leaving this article to focus mostly on the Danish-Swedish events. But other suggestions on how to divide this somewhat messy part of history would be appreciated. henrik  • talk  20:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Dano-Swedish War
Dano-Swedish War is for some reason a redlink. I know there are a lot more Dano-Swedish wars than this one, so I assume that it would be best if a dab page was created.

Peter Isotalo 09:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think I remember seeing a dab page somewhere: found it at Dano-Swedish war. I've redirected the the above title to it, but perhaps we should be consistent with the capital-W spelling. henrik  • talk  10:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions for the GA Review
I notice that this article has been nominated for GA Review. I don't have time for a full review, but I have a couple of quick suggestions for improvements:


 * Citations: some of the notes can be consolidated using the WP:NAMEDREFS system;
 * Endashes: a couple of endashes are required in the infobox, and in the page ranges in the citations.

Just a couple of ideas. Good luck with the GA review. — AustralianRupert (talk) 04:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Dashes fixed. I'll see what I can do about the citations: In the current cite format I use, I'm tempted to think that named refs actually introduce more complexity than they solve (It's a different matter when you have a full cite template in the ref tags, in those cases they're essential.) Thank you for taking the time to give suggestions. henrik  • talk  05:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

References needed
There are several places within the article that need references; as such this article does not seem to meet GA standards. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)