Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hemmema/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 19:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC) [1].

---

Hemmema

Nominator(s): Peter ^Isotalo 11:23, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

As a kind of outgrowth of my never-ending tinkering with galley (and early modern naval history), I came across the "archipelago frigates" of Fredrik Henrik af Chapman. This is one of the four hybrid types that he designed for the archipelago fleet in the late 18th century, and the most numerous. It was an interesting experiment that was along the lines of the galleass, xebec and oared "galley frigates" like the Charles Galley.

It's a narrow topic, and the article is fairly short. As far as I know, it should represent pretty much all the encyclopedic aspects of the ship type that is actually available in published sources.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:23, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Image review

• Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
• File:Swedish_galley_(1749).jpg: as I understand it, freedom of panorama laws in Sweden do not cover works exhibited indoors
• File:Fredrik_Henrik_af_Chapman-Pasch_portrait.jpg: source link is dead, needs US PD tag
• File:Chebec_genois_de_14_canons_en_1826.jpg needs US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Should be fixed now (along with alt descriptions that I always forget to add before nominations).[2] The photo of the galley model is PD since the model is contemporary with the original galley design (noted in the image description). I don't recall if there was an exact date in the museum, but it was made in 18th century or possibly the early 19th century. These models were often made by (or for) the shipwright to be displayed for the monarch or navy officials to impress them into securíng the desired building contracts. Or merely as a demonstration.
  • What should I do about the dead link, though? It's still the original source. Peter ^Isotalo 06:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Have you tried Archive.org? That can help restore the link. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Oh, that. No, I tried that before, I believe. It's not archived. But in what way does it matter? Is it to establish the source of the file itself or the information about the painting? Peter ^Isotalo 12:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
        • @Nikkimaria:: Anything else that needs fixing in the image department? Peter ^Isotalo 08:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Language

I was approached by Peter who asked if I could take a look at the article and maybe tweak the language. I didn't want to mess with the article itself so I copied it to my sandbox-2. I made my suggestions in stages and left comments in the edit summaries. Use some, none or all of it, or let me know if I should make the changes myself, I'm not familiar with FAC's. Best, w.carter-Talk 21:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the copyedit, W.carter (or just "carter"?). I implemented most, but not all of it, myself. The sandbox was a pretty good idea, btw.

You're free to merely suggest improvements at FACs (as you have already done), but you can also either oppose or support a candidate by applying the featured article criteria. If you wish to oppose, just specify in what area the article is lacking. The only requirement is that the criticism needs to be "actionable", ei a concrete lack of something rather than "language isn't good enough" or "not enough refs". Giving one or two examples is usually enough.

Peter ^Isotalo 08:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Support. Comments The article is in excellent shape. A couple of comments below.

• I initially didn't understand the link to Tavastia in the first sentence -- I thought perhaps "hemmema" was a dialect word from that area. Perhaps the explanation can be made clearer. Also the English name for the link given is different in the body -- "Tavastland" instead of "Tavastia".
• "Swedish prolific naval architect" is not the most natural adjective sequence. I'd suggest "Prolific Swedish naval architect", or "The prolific Swedish naval architect", or "Fredrik Henrik af Chapman, the prolific Swedish naval architect".
• "the rower-soldiers; numerous of them succumbed to illness": how about "the rower-soldiers, many of whom succumbed to illness"?
• "After Russia defeated Sweden": I assume this refers to the 1741-1743 war, and would suggest making this "After Russia defeated Sweden in 1743" to make this clearer to the reader.
• "The galleys' firepower was inadequate, they were inefficient in terms of manpower, had poor protection for the crew, and were not particularly seaworthy." These should be parallel constructions, so I would either add "they" to the third and fourth reasons in the list, or rephrase. Part of the problem is that the subject of the first clause is "firepower", so there can be no parallelism to that.

  I struck this but on rereading I'm unstriking; the firepower is still the subject of the first clause, so the rest of the clause doesn't work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

  The most recent edit to this still didn't fix what I saw as a problem, so I've edited it myself -- I hope my version is acceptable. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:56, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• 'The turuma and the hemmema vessel types best fit the description of "archipelago frigate"': suggest 'Of the new designs, the turuma and the hemmema vessel types best fit the description of "archipelago frigate"'
• "They also had some of the heaviest broadsides, even compared with the high seas navy": I don't think this is quite right, though I think I know what you mean. The problem is that "heaviest" needs to be used in comparison with some group, but using "even" indicates an additional comparison, so it's not clear what group of guns these were the heaviest of.
• "The later hemmemas were also considerably larger ...": I don't think you need "also" here.
• "The Swedish-built hemmemas were all of the same specifications": how about "The Swedish hemmemas were all built to the same specifications"?
• "Lost at First Battle of Svensksund 1789": suggest "Lost to Russia at First Battle of Svensksund 1789" for those of us who would otherwise have to click on the link.
• "Fell into Russian hands at the surrender of Sveaborg in 1808 and the name rendered as Gel'gomar in Russian": I think this would be more natural as "Fell into Russian hands at the surrender of Sveaborg in 1808; the name was changed to Gel'gomar in Russian".
• You give the length of Oden as 32 m. in the table but c. 33 m. in the article; which is it? (I changed "c.33" to "c. 33" per MOS, which expects a space after "c.".)
• It took me a few seconds to understand that the dashes in the tables are essentially dittos; they indicate that the value is the same as in the cell above. I initially thought they meant that the value was not available. Given that there are only four types, would it be better to define the four types in a short table and then replace the size, oars, and armament columns with a "type" column? For the Russian ships even this wouldn't be necessary -- you could just specify the information at the top of the table.
• I don't think you need any of the three links in the "See also" section. There's already a link to galley in the body of the article; the word "gunboat" appears in the article and could be linked there; and I don't think rowing is worth linking.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:14, 11 September 2014 (UTC) I see some editing has been done so I've struck the items that have been taken care of. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:04, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for striking. Sorry for not specifying the tinkering. The solution for condensing the tables seems very workable. I just need to figure out the exact formatting. Peter ^Isotalo 08:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Mike, I think your remaining suggestions have been addressed. How do you feel about the solution with four tables instead of two, though? Workable?

Peter ^Isotalo 10:37, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it works. You could combine some duplicate rows (perhaps "St. Petersburg" and "1808") but that's a matter of taste, not a FAC issue. I struck a couple more but three look to be still outstanding (including a partially struck comment about Tavastia/Tavastland which you may have missed). I'll read through again since I see there have been some more edits. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Additional comments.

• "have been described Tredea and Sozaev describe" -- looks like some editing debris there.
• Of the twelve, you give the final information about all but one -- Hjalmar. If it's not known when she was broken up, can we say "last listed" or something similar, as you do for Styrbjörn?

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, Mike. I think that should the last of it.[3]

Forgot to comment the "See also"-links before, though. I don't see any harm in that particular type of repetition. They're all relevant, even the very general rowing, and I think it's better than not having them at all.

Peter ^Isotalo 19:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, MOS says 'As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes'; I would remove all three myself, but it's a matter of editorial judgement and not a FAC issue.

The only remaining issue was a sentence I was unhappy with; I didn't like the most recent version so I edited it myself. I hope that's OK; and assuming that it is I've switched to support above. This is a fine piece of work and was a pleasure to read. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:56, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with it. And for the reviewing overall.

Peter ^Isotalo 09:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

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

• I copyedited this at GAN but I see it's changed a lot, so I'll start over.
• "term term": That's in the first sentence, so it might be a good idea to read through it again.
• "The prolific and innovative Swedish naval architect Fredrik Henrik af Chapman (1721–1808), collaborated", "involvement in Prussia in the Seven Years' War (1757–62), reinforced": Don't put a comma between subject and verb.
• "It could under either sails": ?
• "they were inefficient in terms of manpower": I don't know what that means.
• "7-8 pairs": seven or eight pairs
• "The xebec was a good sailer, could be rowed if necessary and had more guns and greater stores than a galley; they were also cheaper to maintain.": "xebec/they" doesn't work.
• "Oden. the first hemmema, completed in 1764.": ? - Dank (push to talk) 03:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Yeah, there's been some tinkering, and not just by me. So thanks for looking it over. How's this? Peter ^Isotalo 10:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. Your link deals with all my points except the last one, and I haven't looked at last night's other edits. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 13:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • As always, I'm very grateful for your own help. Peter ^Isotalo 19:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Support, nice work. Two comments:

• I removed the "See also" section since galley and gunboat should be linked within the prose anyway, and "rowing" is a low-value link. If you consider it important, just link it in the prose. See MOS:SEEALSO.
• Saunders is in the list of References but it doesn't seem to be cited anywhere.

--Spike Wilbury (talk) 00:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. It belonged to a statement regarding the use of the name Hämeenmaa for ships of the modern Finnish Navy. It got lost in a reshuffle, apparently.[4]

I'm not going to restore the "see also"-links, but the "general rule" at MOS:SEEALSO strikes me as nonsense. There is no apparent reasoning behind it. It just assumes that the average reader reads through every single paragraph, takes note of every single link and would actually be bothered by a repetition in the "see also"-section. And pretty much that even occasional redundancy of linkage is bad for articles. It's a high-handed solution a non-existent problem.

Peter ^Isotalo 12:33, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree, on further reflection. I have restored the section (but please feel free to further alter it as you see fit). --Spike Wilbury (talk) 12:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the mini-rant, but I've had to take similar positions in previous FACs. I think it might be appropriate if I started a discussion about this over at MOS:SEEALSO. Thanks for reconsidering.

Peter ^Isotalo 14:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley Miles

• "a turuma, a different type of "archipelago frigate". If a hemmema was a type of frigate, wouldn't it be better to use that word at the start rather than the general "warship".
• I think you should say at the start that the hemmema was Russian as well as Swedish, rather than describing it as a weapon against the Russians until almost the end of the lead and then appearing to turn round and saying it was also Russian. (I take it that the vessel was only important to the Swedes but this can be explained.)
• Great Northern War - it would be helpful to give the date.
• "the minor involvement in Prussia" - sounds a bit odd referring to the navy - did they go up Prussian rivers?
• "under the official name of arméns flotta ("fleet of the army") under the command of the Krigskollegium, the army department". Repetition of "under". I think "with" would be better in the first case.
• " For two decades, the struggle for power between the Hats and the Caps, the dominant political factions at the time, and rivalries between army and navy brought about changes to the archipelago fleet..." This is repeated in the para below!
• The third paragraph of 'Archipelago fleet' largely repeats points made in 'Background'
• "The development of the Russian ships influenced the leadership of the archipelago fleet" - "influenced the leadership" sounds odd to me.
• " within the skerries". This could do with a few words of explanation.
• "Contemporary Swedish painting of the Battle of Svensksund where two of the larger hemmemas participated" I think "provided much of the firepower" would be better than "participated".
• " highly manoeuvrable under oars, it was difficult to propel with sweeps" - this is my ignorance, but I do not understand this. What is the difference?
• Why mention that 3 ships were under construction when Sveaborg was surrendered but not that two ships were captured?
• In the table, why are 4 Sedish ships red links and the other two Swedish and the 6 Russian not?
• A good article, but repetitious in parts. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

  Pardon the slight dawdling. Non-wiki life calling. Much oblige for the comments. These two edits[5] should address your concerns. Concerning two of your questions:

  • "Archipelago frigate" is a very specific term that is used for all four of the specialized vessels designed by af Chapman. Having the term in quotes has its reasons since it's not a well-defined subcategory of "real" frigates. For example, two of Chapman's other designs, the udema and pojama are defintely not frigates and none of the sources I've used actually refer to any of these vessels as just "frigates". Turumas and hemmemas were quite similar to ocean-going frigates, but their tactical role was very different. And note the inspiration from xebecs, which are not referred to as frigates. I can't comment on any specific similarities in building techniques and whatnot. It's not something that has received any coverage in the sources either.
  • I simply unlinked the individual vessels. They were not added by me and I don't see that they could ever become meaningful separate articles. Oden, Styrbjörn and Birger Jarl might be worth the effort, but the rest are unlikely to ever go beyond what is already stated in this article.

  Peter ^Isotalo 15:30, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• The formatting of references has gone wrong in the first paragraph of 'Development'.
• "The development of the Russian ships influenced the leadership of the archipelago fleet and Chapman." The still sounds a bit odd to me. How about something like "These innovations influenced Chapman and the Swedish naval command." Dudley Miles (talk) 09:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Better?[6] Peter ^Isotalo 12:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Support. A fine article. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Closing comment -- No dedicated source review so just cast my eye over the refs and citations, and no major issues leapt out re. reliability or formatting. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 01:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.