Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Swedish allotment system/archive1
Swedish allotment system[edit]
Self-nom, text mostly written by me, copyedited and refined mostly by User:Bishonen who has also improved the article in several other ways. User:Karmosin also provided me with some comments on how to improve the article. It also had a peer review which wasn't very comprehensive, but I believe that the thorough check by Bishonen has been even more than you would expect to get from a peer review. :) The article subject itself is interresting as it deals with a unique historical system of recruiting soldiers, a system not (to my knowledge) used anywhere else. -- Elisson • Talk 23:55, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support
Object – =background=, =navy= and =officers= sections are too short. Merge with another section or expand. I've revied part of the article (full review later) but this sentence caught my eye: Nobles and farms on land owned by nobles were exempted and did not need to provide soldiers to the system. Its not framed correctly and not mentioned why they were exempted. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:32, September 3, 2005 (UTC)- All mentioned sections expanded in one way or another. =background= is hard to expand much more without having to describe the older "systems" in detail, which is not covered by the scope of this particular article. None the less, I think the background should have its own section (and it is currently longer than many first level sections in other featured articles). The sections expanded (may) need some copyediting. How would you rephrase the sentence? Something along the lines of: Farms on land owned by nobles and the estates of nobles were exempted and did not need to provide soldiers to the system.? They were exempted because they were nobles or owned by nobles. Easy as that. Don't know how to clarify that, got any ideas? -- Elisson • Talk 12:29, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- Its an interensting subject but it definately needs to be copyedited. I've tried copyediting a bit, but it would need a more thorough copyedit. The article does not flow smoothly and has some odd sentences here and there. For example the forced conscription was disliked and the reasons for the dislike are given later instead of alongside. Also the =new syste= should begin with the drawbacks of the old system, then discuss about what was done and when. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:35, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Article has now been copyedited (by User:Denelson83). "Later", in the case about the disliking, means the next sentence in the following paragraph, a paragraph which deals entirely with reasons why the system was disliked. I don't think I can solve that in a better way. Suggestions? The drawbacks of the old system are mentioned in the section about the old system because they relate to the old system. ;) You want the drawbacks closer to the mention that the system was disliked, but at the same time want them moved to the next section? Doesn't make sense. ;) I'd like you to clarify even more about the things you think I need to fix, or even edit the article yourself to show how you'd like it. -- Elisson • Talk 16:33, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- That copyedit has done wonders to the readability. Thanks Denelson!
- Article has now been copyedited (by User:Denelson83). "Later", in the case about the disliking, means the next sentence in the following paragraph, a paragraph which deals entirely with reasons why the system was disliked. I don't think I can solve that in a better way. Suggestions? The drawbacks of the old system are mentioned in the section about the old system because they relate to the old system. ;) You want the drawbacks closer to the mention that the system was disliked, but at the same time want them moved to the next section? Doesn't make sense. ;) I'd like you to clarify even more about the things you think I need to fix, or even edit the article yourself to show how you'd like it. -- Elisson • Talk 16:33, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- Its an interensting subject but it definately needs to be copyedited. I've tried copyediting a bit, but it would need a more thorough copyedit. The article does not flow smoothly and has some odd sentences here and there. For example the forced conscription was disliked and the reasons for the dislike are given later instead of alongside. Also the =new syste= should begin with the drawbacks of the old system, then discuss about what was done and when. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:35, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
- All mentioned sections expanded in one way or another. =background= is hard to expand much more without having to describe the older "systems" in detail, which is not covered by the scope of this particular article. None the less, I think the background should have its own section (and it is currently longer than many first level sections in other featured articles). The sections expanded (may) need some copyediting. How would you rephrase the sentence? Something along the lines of: Farms on land owned by nobles and the estates of nobles were exempted and did not need to provide soldiers to the system.? They were exempted because they were nobles or owned by nobles. Easy as that. Don't know how to clarify that, got any ideas? -- Elisson • Talk 12:29, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support, interesting and unusual article. I've only done a bit of an EAL copyedit, in spite of Johan's kind words, so I feel quite righteous about voting. The article seems comprehensive to me, I can't think of anything missing. OTOH, the author is going into uncharted territory, without any model page to follow, so I have a bit of a feeling others may be able to suggest further interesting perspectives. (Pending that, my support is a little tentative.) It's well-referenced, although both print and online sources are all in Swedish. That's positive in a sense (=Wikipedia is yet again unique on the web in bringing a subject to Anglophone readers), but of course also frustrating for non-Swedish speakers wanting to check out the information. It looks good to me, though. While the online sources are maintained by seriously-addicted hobbyists (nothing wrong with them on that level, either) rather than published military historians, the authors of the two print sources are widely published and clearly very reputable. I'd give links to the quite impressive searches for them in the Swedish LIBRIS database, except that those would soon only lead to timed-out sessions. Bishonen | talk 10:03, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Seems fine to me. Many references. Andre (talk) 22:22, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. The subject matter is interesting and Elisson has made a good job of incorporating exactly what I asked for in the PR. One quibble, though. Even if Image:Pikemen musketeers.jpg is very nice and informative, I have doubts about calling it "fair use". Doesn't the article have to be about the book to merit inclusion? / Peter Isotalo 09:51, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- I had some concerns about that. The image can be removed without ruining the article, so that isn't any problem, but I'd like to keep it there. I do however not believe that the image has to be about the book in this case, as the drawing might even not have been drawn for that specific book? It is not the cover of the book. -- Elisson • Talk 11:52, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
