Talk:HSwMS Oden

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:HSwMS Oden/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 15:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 21:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I will review this one, comments to follow in due course. Zawed (talk) 21:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Some comments to start:

Lead

• Hyphenate "first class"
  • Added.
• "The battleship was armed...": this should be just "ship" I think as Oden isn't a battleship?
  • Amended.

Design and development

• The primary unit for displacement in the text is t but is l.t in the infobox
  • Changed in the text.
• Inconsistency between some of the data in the infobox; some values in the infobox are pre-reconstruction while others are afterwards. I suggest adding a little disclaimer to the "General characteristics" heading, along the lines of "as built" or "as reconstructed" and then use the appropriate data
  • Good idea. Added "(as built)" and made consistent.
• The two 8 mm (0.3 in) on the mast are not listed in the infobox
  • Added.
• ...thick. 49 mm: Rephrase so sentence doesn't start with a number
  • Reworded.

Construction and career

• On 11 August 1898, the vessel led a division that...: suggest "On 11 August 1898, the vessel led a flotilla of ships that..."
  • Amended.
• During September 1901, the ship ran aground and was damaged, returning for repairs.: do the sources say where the grounding took place and where she returned to?
  • Added contemporary source with more data.
• On 20 February 1904, Oden...: suggest rephrasing this sentence to avoid the two instances of "in response to"
  • Reworded.
• Urd had been acting as a target ship for the battleship: battleship? Ditto first sentence of next paragraph
  • Changed.
• link Karlskrona on first mention
  • Added.

Other stuff

• There are quite a few dupe links - all but one seem to be units of measurement, the exception is Ven in the construction and career section
  • Yes. All are now gone.
• Image tag for the plan view OK, but suggest adding a US tag for the photograph in the infobox. The date for the after reconstruction photo is clearly wrong, and am not sure if author name is correct.
  • Added the PD tag for the infobox image and updated the license for the other.
• AGF on sourcing. I get an Error 403 message for the Office of Naval Intelligence link.
  • Good spot. Amended link for the 1900 report.

That's it for me. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 10:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

@Zawed: Thank you for your thorough review. I believe all the changes requested have been done. simongraham (talk) 14:34, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Looks good. I am passing the article as GA as I believe that it meets the necessary criteria. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 11:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)