Wikipedia:Peer review/Boden Fortress/archive1

Boden Fortress

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it could be a candidate for a featured article (soon or perhaps after some work) and it would be nice to know what further work needs to be done.

Thanks, Hst20 (talk) 05:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I realize now this should probably be listed under Geography and Places. Not sure how to move it, but maybe it doesn't matter for the review. --Hst20 (talk) 08:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments by A. Parrot

I just realized that I wrote a ridiculously long review, but better to be too thorough than not enough. I was mainly concerned with the details of the prose, because I can't check the reliability of Swedish-language sources.

The first overall issue is that there need to be more inline citations. At minimum, there should be a citation at the end of every paragraph, every quotation, and every potentially controversial statement. The citations at the moment are scattered, sometimes only covering parts of a paragraph.

The second is more subjective. It seems that there's a lot of detail on the decision-making process that led to the fortress' construction, but relatively little on the design and armament. That might make more sense if there were subarticles on the individual forts that would contain that information, but there aren't right now. If articles on the forts are viable, consider creating them; if not, consider adding information on the design, and perhaps trimming the background.

Infobox and lead section

• In "Garrison" entry, perhaps say the main forts had "2,000 men each"?

• The latter two sentences in the first paragraph, describing why the fort was constructed, might make more sense before the sentences on when it was constructed.

• Maybe mention that the fortress is now a historic building and a tourist attraction.

Central and peripheral defense

• The quotation by Clausewitz isn't very necessary to the background; you might just say that he mentioned that Sweden was a good place for a war of attrition and then put the quotation in a note.

Fortification of Sweden

• "Reasons why Norrland was considered of very limited military interest…" could be shortened to "Reasons for this opinion…"

• "colonel—and much later Swedish Minister for War—Gustaf Oscar Peyron" could be shortened to "Colonel Gustaf Oscar Peyron". It's not relevant here that he later became minister for war, and there's no need to link a common word like colonel.

Railroads speed up planning

• "All the other major roads exclusively had a southeast–northwest stretch—that followed the run of the large rivers—before they ended up in nowhere" might sound better as: "All the other major roads exclusively ran southeast–northwest—following the run of the large rivers—before ending in wilderness" or something similar.

• Consider spelling out, not just linking, the abbreviations USD and especially SEK when they first appear. SEK is not a familiar abbreviation to most English speakers. Example: "1.3 million Swedish kronor (SEK)".

Final decision

• "The plan gained support from the first chamber but not from the second chamber, and thus the joint vote decided, which was in favor of the proposition." This is rather unclear; did the two chambers have a joint vote, as they did a year later? If so, perhaps say something like "The plan gained support from the first chamber but not from the second chamber, but when put to a joint vote of both chambers, the proposition passed."

• Perhaps change "increased tensions in the Union to ""increased tensions in the Union between Sweden and Norway". It's not immediately clear what "the Union" refers to.

• The statement that Rappe was later referred to as "the spiritual father of Boden Fortress" is probably better placed after Rappe's first mention rather than here, after his last mention.

Initial work

• The phrase "blasted into the mountains" seems a little odd; "dug into" might work better.

Finishing touch

• Perhaps title it "Finishing touches", because a lot of different things were still going on at this stage.

Two World Wars

• Saying that events "questioned the usability of Boden Fortress" sounds odd, and I don't think it conveys your intended meaning. Perhaps say "put the usefulness of Boden Fortress into question"?

• "Lars Tingsten—later Minister for War and also the first commander of Boden Fortress" Again, his later position as Minister for War isn't important here, although you might want to state what position he held when he made his statement.

• "when the fortress was tested against a coup de main in April 1913" You might want to state that this was a military exercise, not a real coup de main; even with the word "tested" there, I was confused for a moment.

Espionage

• You should probably state Colonel Assanovitch's first name, if you can find it in a source.

Cold War and myths

• "Weapons such as cruise missiles and smart bombs dealt the death blow to Boden Fortress" — You probably want to rephrase this, as it might give the impression that they literally dealt it the death blow (BOOM!). I assume that they demonstrated that the fort was obsolete, but you should state that clearly, and probably give some details on how they did that.

• The first two paragraphs are about the fort's Cold War history and decommissioning, while the latter two are about modern perceptions about the fort. Those subjects might work better if treated in separate sections.

• In the fourth paragraph, "the total cost of the project" is vague; do you mean the fort's construction?

• The "some people say/other people say" pattern in that paragraph is also vague. It's better to include some names (preferably of people with credentials) just to give an idea of who is saying what.

In media and Legacy: The Carl Gustav

• The mentions of the fort in the "In media" section seem rather trivial, and Wikipedians increasingly want to avoid trivial mentions like this in articles. More significant appearances of the fort, demonstrating how it's perceived in Sweden, would work better; if you can't find more significant appearances, you may want to reconsider including this section. For more information on how to write this kind of section, I recommend this page; I want to emphasize that that page is not a Wikipedia rule, just one person's advice, but still I think it's good advice.

• "Thank you, my lad, for sparing us of Boden Fortress!" — This sentence doesn't quite make sense in English. Does it mean "sparing Boden Fortress for us"?

• I question the relevance of the Carl Gustav rifle, too, but it might be integrated into some other part of the article. It's odd to have it in its own little section.

A. Parrot (talk) 04:20, 19 March 2011

Thanks!

I would definitely agree with pretty much all of what you've said. This article isn't my baby, just a subject I'm really interested in and have contributed some to. Most of the article is probably written by people with English as a second language (that would include myself), so I really appreciate the input and the changes you've made. Personally I don't have access to the printed sources and I really don't have the time to look through them at the moment to try and improve the article that way. I'll be bold and start digging through the article soon, thanks a lot for the input. --Hst20 (talk) 13:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)