Talk:Udema/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 21:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment. Copyedited. - Dank (push to talk) 21:25, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Initial comments

 * This article generally looks in good shape and it is a shame its taken so long for it to be reviewed. I have a few initial cmts:
 * I've made a few tweaks straight up to try and speed this along as I think they are uncontroversial, mainly just adding some missing bibliographic details, using title case for titles in the references, and consolidating a ref. My edits are here . Happy to discuss any of them if you disagree.
 * In particular I capitalized the see also list, but I suspect there may have been a reason you had them in lower case. If so pls let me know and revert if req'd.
 * Can a reference pls be added for this sentence? "The name "udema" has been carried on (in its more modern variant) as a traditional vessel name in the Finnish navy, with several ships named after the type." I don't think this is quite a sky is blue comment and it shouldn't be too hard to provide refs to the existence of the other ships of this name.
 * There are a few dab links that might need to be looked at:
 * Pohjanmaa
 * Turunmaa
 * Topgallant
 * Unsure of the grammar and capitalisation used in this caption: "Contemporary Swedish painting of the battle of Svensksund where an udema was one of the few Swedish vessels lost." Specifically should "battle of Svensksund" be "Battle of Svensksund" as a proper noun? Equally should it be "an udema" or "a udema"?
 * Same issue in the lead of the article: "An udema (also udenma)..." or should it be "A udema", an doesn't sound right to me but then again my knowledge of the vagaries of the rules of grammar is admittedly not great so happy to accept if I am wrong.
 * More to follow. Anotherclown (talk) 21:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Have you considered using citation templates for the works in the reference list (for example Template:Cite book). This would ensure consistent presentation (suggestion only).
 * There are a few duplicate links which should be removed per WP:REPEATLINK:
 * turuma
 * Russo-Swedish war of 1788–90
 * Sentence here seems to be missing a word while I'm not sure about the use of "armament": "Several new ships were designed by the naval architect Fredrik Henrik af Chapman to bolster the hitting-power of the new Swedish armament, to provide it with better naval defense and greater fire support capabilities during amphibious operations." Consider instead something like: "Several new ships were designed by the naval architect Fredrik Henrik af Chapman to bolster the hitting-power of the Swedish military by providing it with better naval defense and greater fire support capabilities during amphibious operations."
 * "...and decent living conditions of sailing ships...", consider instead: "...and more comfortable living conditions of sailing ships..."
 * "...that was completely unique...", consider more simply just "...that was unique..." (I don't think something can be partially unique by definition).
 * "... similarly to the main guns of the dreadnought battleships ...", would "similar to..." work better?
 * Repetitive language used here: "Rowers sat on the weather deck on either side of the main armament with the oar ports placed on a rectangular outrigger which improved their leverage. Rowers sat on the gun..." (i.e. two sentences start in the same manner straight after each other). Consider rewording for readability.
 * This seems awkwardly worded to me: "in the US Jeffersonian so-called gunboat navy...", might it be reworded somehow? Anotherclown (talk) 23:57, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think this should take care of most of your concerns. I always prefer lower case see also-links when they don't refer to proper nouns. In my view "battle of..." is merely a formulaic description of events, not a proper noun. It's a minority view, but there are English-language authors who also use this. Here is an example of an anthology where both actually co-exist. You're welcome to change the latter is you believe it looks jarring.
 * It never struck me that it could be interpreted as "yudema", actually. In my view, it would be too much of an Anglicized pronunciation, but I see your point. I've added Swedish IPA and combined with the use of "an", I blieve it should reinforce what in my view is the appropriate pronunciation.
 * I'm aware of citation templates, but I've made conscious choice to avoid them, especially in short articles like this.
 * Finding a source that specifically states that Udenmaa has become a traditional name for Finnish warships will likely be difficult. But there's Finnish gunboat Uusimaa, Finnish frigate Uusimaa and the 2007 Hämeenmaa-class minelayer. Not quite "Paris the capital of France", but hardly original research or a contentious statement. Would example links suffice? Peter Isotalo 12:16, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Gday. Happy with those edits. IRT the ref I think the solution is to make the statement more vague. For instance "The name "udema" has been carried on (in its more modern variant) as a traditional vessel name in the Finnish navy, with several ships named after the type." could become "The name "udema" has been carried on (in its more modern variant) in the Finnish navy, with several ships named after the type." You could then add generic references which cover each of the subsequent vessels of that name. (Have a look at Google Books - some references may be available here . Anotherclown (talk) 14:03, 12 July 2014 (UTC) ✅

Progression

 * Version of the article when originally reviewed:
 * Version of the article when review was closed: ]

Technical review

 * Citations: The Citation Check tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd).
 * Disambiguations: no dab links (no action req'd).
 * Linkrot: one of the external links reports as being dead :
 * Information on af Chapman at the Sveaborg official website (info) [suomenlinna.fi] - you might be able to find an archived version through the Wayback Machine.
 * Alt text: images lack alt text so you might consider adding it (not a GA requirement, suggestion only).
 * Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violations or close paraphrasing (no action req'd).
 * Duplicate links: no repeat links to be removed (no action req'd).

Criteria

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Prose looks good following changes, no MOS issues.


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Article is generally well referenced with most major points cited to WP:RS, just the one issue as mentioned above. ✅
 * No issues with OR that I could see.


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * All major points seem to be covered without unnecessary detail.
 * Uses summary style.


 * It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * No issues I could see.


 * It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * No issues here.


 * It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):  d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain:
 * Images all seem to be free / PD and have the req'd information / templates.
 * Only one minor issue I could see: File:Johan Tietrich Schoultz målning Slaget vid Svensksund.jpg doesn't have a date for when it was painted in the image description (it only has the date it was uploaded). Is this available? Having this information would further support the claim that it is PD. ✅
 * Captions seem ok.


 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * Overall a good article, only the issues of the outstanding reference, the dead external link and the date of the painting. Anotherclown (talk) 14:03, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * This should fix things. I found appropriate refs in various other articles. Suomenlinna has spruced up their website pretty recently and there's no archived version to be found, so I just killed it. Dunno why they removed all that useful info. :-/ Date of Schoultz painting (1792) has been added at Commons.
 * Much oblige for the review! I'd like to take this to FAC. If you have any suggestions for improvements to take it to FA-level quality, I'm all ears.
 * Peter Isotalo 15:49, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Great work, happy with those changes. All my points have been addressed so I have passed this now. All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 01:07, 13 July 2014 (UTC)