Talk:Dano-Swedish War (1658–1660)

Importance Rating

I find the mid importance rating very low as the treaty of 1660 established political borders between Denmark, Sweden and Norway which have lasted to the present day. This alone should qualify it for a top importance rating. I am changing it for WikiProject Denmark. Perhaps someone at WikiProject Sweden will consider it as well. (Ice Explorer (talk) 11:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC))

Deluge

A very interesting article, but it needs to be tied to Deluge (history) (currently it doesn't even link to it!). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

True, this article focuses almost exclusively on the Swedish-Danish campaign. I'm a little bit unsure on how to best best incorporate the Deluge and the Polish-Lithuanian view (as well as the other participants) here. For now I added just a simple mention in the background, but I'm sure that's not enough!

In any case, our coverage of this conflict is a bit spread out: Currently there are five articles covering different aspects: The Deluge (history), Russo–Swedish War (1656–1658), Dano-Swedish War (1657-1658), Dano-Swedish War (1658-1660), Dutch-Swedish War (1658-1660) (I've recently redirected the last one to this article) as well as Northern Wars as some kind of overview attempt.

I was planning on improving Northern Wars after this one, flesh out it with a wider view of the broader background and participation of all belligerents and leaving this article to focus mostly on the Danish-Swedish events. But other suggestions on how to divide this somewhat messy part of history would be appreciated. henrik•talk 20:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Dano-Swedish War

Dano-Swedish War is for some reason a redlink. I know there are a lot more Dano-Swedish wars than this one, so I assume that it would be best if a dab page was created.

Peter ^Isotalo 09:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I think I remember seeing a dab page somewhere: found it at Dano-Swedish war. I've redirected the the above title to it, but perhaps we should be consistent with the capital-W spelling. henrik•talk 10:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions for the GA Review

I notice that this article has been nominated for GA Review. I don't have time for a full review, but I have a couple of quick suggestions for improvements:

• Citations: some of the notes can be consolidated using the WP:NAMEDREFS system;
• Endashes: a couple of endashes are required in the infobox, and in the page ranges in the citations.

Just a couple of ideas. Good luck with the GA review. — AustralianRupert (talk) 04:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Dashes fixed. I'll see what I can do about the citations: In the current cite format I use, I'm tempted to think that named refs actually introduce more complexity than they solve (It's a different matter when you have a full {{cite}} template in the ref tags, in those cases they're essential.) Thank you for taking the time to give suggestions. henrik•talk 05:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dano-Swedish War (1658–1660)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   a couple of spots that need some re wording. (See below.)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Seems okay. To tell the truth, this is completely outside my period and I'd never even heard of this war before. All the sources are in Swedish.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

All points addressed

Specific concerns Ambiguous links: Dano-Swedish War (1658-1660) is a self-redirect. Fixed. Dano-Swedish war In this case, it's intentional: That template links to the dab page which lists all the wars. Frederick III Fixed. Frederick William Fixed. Plague Fixed. Polyglot Removed link. In the aftermath of that conflict, the Swedish king Charles X Gustav had set his eyes upon Brandenburg and Austria to enable a campaign against Poland. What does "set his eyes upon" mean. Who was he intending to invade? Thanks, I agree, that bit was somewhat unclear. Rephrased. The treaty of 1660 established the political borders of Denmark, Sweden and Norway that have lasted to the present day. Not according to the map. I think you mean the borders between the three? Yep. Rephrased. Link Bornholm and Trøndelag Done. The Swedish king knew that the army would not be able to be supplied in Sweden for long I'd like to believe you but I don't. You park the army near a port in Sweden and bring in supplies from all over the Baltic by water. what's the problem? Modern military logistics with supply lines from the rear started to develop in the 17th century; but foraging and pillaging were still common in the mid-1600s. It was essentially free to park your army on the enemy's land and take what you needed from the local land and local farmers; buying and shipping provisions would be a large expense for the small Swedish state. Here are a few quotes from the sources: Charles had to decide swiftly. Under the terms of Roskilde, the Danes were to supply him with 2000 men and maintain the Swedish army until it withdrew in May. Charles knew that it was impossible for him to support the army for long, and unthinkable to disband it when the Poles were thirsting for revenge, prepared to support an aggressive war beyond the Commonwealth's borders for the first time since 1635. (Frost, p. 181) Last but not least, he had a large army to support. It was simply not possible let it stay unused. The costs were too great. He could not disband it either, with the sensitive foreign situation. (Isacson, p. 187) Link Livonia and Estonia. (Advice to King Carl Gustav: invade Russia. that's what the real megalomaniacs do.) Done. 40 years later, in the early 1700s, the then Swedish King Charles XII actually did invade Russia. Napoleon and Hitler would later follow his mistakes :) but the many enemies in Brandenburg Whao are we referring to? Clarified. field marshal Gustav Otto Stenbock Is field marshal his rank? Capitalise it. Done. The plan was for the Swedish army to march on Copenhagen. Reference required. Done. It was expected that the Dutch would intervene in the conflict, Why? (Hint: move it up from the next section.) Done, thanks. Vice admiral -> Vice Admiral Done. Thanks to the earlier preparations, a large force of 14,500 Brandenbrugers under Frederick William, 10,600 Austrians led by the Italian field marshal Raimondo Montecuccoli and 4 500 Poles led by Stefan Czarniecki had crossed the Oder on September 14, 1658. Comma required here in the last number Done. The Swedes were not popular in the regions that Sweden had gained at the Treaty of Roskilde in 1658. With the new war going badly, insurgents saw their chance to rise up against the unpopular rule. Reference required. This reference is the only thing holding up promotion now. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC) Oops, missed this one. Somewhat expanded and referenced now. henrik•talk 09:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC) Many thanks, good suggestions! I'll get cracking. Yep, it's an obscure little war, but it was arguably the beginning of the end of what was called the Swedish Empire. I like to write about Swedish failures :-) You might try finishing the artickle on the Great Northern War. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC) One northern war at a time :-) henrik•talk 09:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC) Most of the sources are in Swedish, but Frost's The Northern Wars (1558-1721) is English. It only devotes a few pages to this particular war though (not surprising, it's an overview of nearly two centuries of history). I plan on expanding the coverage of this large multifaceted conflict in other articles, and for that I plan on expanding my collection of English language sources. I'll probably go back here then and revisit it give more weight to English sources, if nothing else to make verification more convenient. henrik•talk 11:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

References needed

There are several places within the article that need references; as such this article does not seem to meet GA standards. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Dano-Swedish War (1658–1660)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted Consensus here to delist AIRcorn (talk) 01:57, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

This article was promoted back in 2009 and now there are multiple tags on the page. Thatoneweirdwikier | Say hi 19:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• Delist significant unreferenced text and it seems no one is interested in fixing it. However, I hope that someone will step up and do so, as it looks completely fixable. buidhe 19:46, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I concur, this needs addressing the citaitions neeeded tags, but it does not seem like it would be that tough - if only somebody would care. Ping User:Hawkeye7 and User:Henrik. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• Delist Months later, still major swaths of uncited text. Fails the verifiability criteria. I'm also not a fan of the organization of the article, with over 80% of the text being stuck under the vague heading of "events".Resowithrae (talk) 14:07, 27 July 2020 (UTC)