Talk:Vasa (ship)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Vasa (ship) article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Featured article star Vasa (ship) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 24, 2008.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Wikipedia
 Current traffic statistics for this page from June 2008 can be found at the linked page.
Archive
Archives
Archive 1
To-do: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • Fix all unreferenced sections and paragraphs. Using the latest works of reference, preferably in English, is recommended. Minor online resources, unless they are written by Vasa-scholars, should be avoided.
  • The description of how the plans changed during the building is rather unclear. Did they change?
  • Rephrase: (In the lead) The exact reasons for the capsizing are still debated. Ship stability is well understood now.
  • Recovery (this section should be greatly expanded)
    • More information about the pre-modern salvaging teams that recovered most of the cannons.
    • Create a sub-section on how the modern salvage was organized, how it was performed and who was involved.
    • Create a sub-section ("Findings"? "Artifacts"?) with details about the archaeological findings and how they were recovered, including a summary of the various artifacts and their significance. Suggest using Vasa I as the foremost (if not actually the sole) source for this.
  • Maiden voyage
  • Include discussion on ship stability and what mistakes the builders did. (How would a seaworthy Vasa have been configured?)
  • The Vasa is sometimes used as an example of how not to run modern projects [1], does this deserve a mention?
  • A section ("Prelude"?) explaining the reasons for why Vasa was built and a quick summary of the political situation in the Baltic in the early 17th century.
  • Construction > Ornamentation
  • Clarify mention of some of the 23 warriors Gideon -- the bible's book of Judges, chapter 7, describes Gideon's attack on the Midianites with 300 men, not 23.

Last updated by Peter Isotalo 14:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Copyedit

This article, or a prior version of it, was copyedited by the League of Copyeditors on 19:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC). The League is always in need of editors with a good grasp of English to review articles. Visit the Project page if you are interested in helping.

Copyedited by Finetooth (talk) – 03:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Proofread by Galena11 (talk) – 19:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copyeditor's thoughts

After a little hiccup, things went smoothly with the copyediting. The article is fascinating, well-organized, well-supported, and well-organized. In case you were puzzled by my Manual of Style focus at the start, I should explain that I often do the en-dashes and other "dust mouse" things as a kind of warm-up exercise for the real thing, which is partly intuitive and can't rely heavily on the Manual of Style. Thank you for the heads-up about the autoformatting debate. I plan to follow it and perhaps even participate. I hope it turns out to your liking. Finetooth (talk) 04:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Query

This bit seems awkwardly phrased: Among the ablest and probably the most popular of Swedish rulers was Gustavus Adolphus. In the 1620s he had been king for little more than a decade. By 1620 he had been king for less than a decade, by 1621 he had been king for a decade, by 1622 he'd been king for little more than a decade, by 1626 I think you'd have to say he had been king for well over a decade, and by 1629 he'd been king for almost two decades. I don't really know what this is driving at anyway. Are you trying to imply he was relatively inexperienced? Nine plus years should really have given him time to settle in. Yomanganitalk 14:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Is this better you think?
Peter Isotalo 14:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Hm, sorry Peter - I apparently overwrote your suggestion with this. Funny, I didn't see any edit conflict. Feel free to revert to your version if you prefer that. henrik•talk 14:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I prefer Henrik's version, as it gets round the problem of him not having been king for over a decade until 1622. Yomanganitalk 14:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wasavarvet

Should Wasavarvet be translated as "The Vasa Shipyard" or as "Vasa Shipyard"? Finetooth (talk) 16:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Peter is the Swedish grammar expert here, but "Wasavarvet" is in definite form in Swedish, so I assume it'll be "The Wasa Shipyard" (One note: during the time the Vasa actually was in the Wasa Shipyard, the name of the ship was most commonly spelled Wasa. The ship has since changed spelling, but not the shipyard for some obscure reason) henrik•talk 17:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
The translation sounds better with a definite article to me.
The old spelling was really just a matter of taste. I think "w" was somewhat more common to represent the the "v"-sound in older texts, and it does have a more archaic ring to it. It hadn't been consistently in the written language since the 19th century, though. Some of the older commissions and projects handling the ship spelled their names with "w", and it wasn't until the new Vasa Museum was built that the spelling was finally standardized. If you search the Swedish literature, though, most of the older books use "w". And since the old Vasavarvet was built and named in this time, the correct translation would be "Wasa".
Peter Isotalo 21:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
The old usage of "w" to represent the the "v"-sound is a anachronism that origins from the German language where the letter "v" is pronounced as "f" when it occurs first in a word (like in Vogel). This distinction between "v" and "w" does not occur naturally in the Swedish language, but it was commonplace during Stormaktstiden when Sweden was heavily influenced by german immigrants.

[edit] Red links

I think the red links won't pass FA and should probably be unlinked. Finetooth (talk) 17:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I've unlinked two of the three, but Mascaron (architecture) should really become a bluelink eventually, and I think it should stay to encourage people to create it. The article on the French Wikipedia is quite well developed, and had my French been better I might have tried to translate it. Or is there another term in English for a stylized grinning face? henrik•talk 18:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I like mascaron; it's a new word for me. I think it is close to gargoyle and chimera but probably not exactly the same. Finetooth (talk) 05:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I hadn't heard it before I started working at the Vasa Musueum myself. It should definitely have it's own article, though. It's a fairly important feature of early modern architecture.
Peter Isotalo 05:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree, and this particular red link should stay. On another topic, I'm fascinated by the FAC process. I've not been involved directly in any before Vasa. I confess that I'm having trouble finding the missing no-break-spaces, number problems, and dash problems. If I could see them, I would fix them. Perhaps it's the em dashes that are out of compliance. Hmmm. Perhaps after a long nap, I will try again. Finetooth (talk) 01:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Later. Replaced two sets of em dashes with something better, I hope. Meanwhile, User:Leonard G. has created a Mascaron (architecture) article and, thus, turned the red link blue. Thank you, Leonard G. Finetooth (talk) 06:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images from museum needed

On the lower floor of the museum are several model exhibits, including a model of the shipyard with works in progress. These would be a useful addition to the article. Perhaps a photographer could be recruited? - Leonard G. (talk) 04:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Check the links to Commons. There's a few pictures there that might be suitable.
Peter Isotalo 07:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Long tons?

In one or two places, tons are mentioned in the article and not yet converted to kilograms. I'd gladly add the conversion templates, but I don't know if these are long tons (British) or short tons (U.S.). I'm guessing long tons, but I don't know for sure. Finetooth (talk) 15:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Me and Peter being European, they're metric tons. I've changed the text to say tonne instead, which I hope is unambiguous. I left one "ton" on a very uncertain measurement ("many tons"), so it doesn't matter much which of the long, short or metric tons you think of. henrik•talk 19:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unit conversions, no-break codes, em dashes, wikilinks

I believe all of the unit conversions are done. In some cases, such as with 700 tonnes, I rounded the conversions to what seemed significant; i.e. 1.5 million lb, not 1,543,236 lb. I changed "mile" to "nautical mile" in the lead per a reviewer's on-the-mark suggestion, but I also added a conversion to kilometres to be completely consistent.

I think all of the non-breaking spaces have been added correctly, either with code or templates.

I wikilinked "poop" and "orlop" per a reviewer's sharp-eyed suggestion.

The em dashes are all gone. We didn't need them. If a problem exists with the en dashes, I don't see it.

I don't see any more MOSNUM or MOSCAP violations. Finetooth (talk) 05:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Featured!

What a Christmas present! Sandy just promoted this, so we've made FA-status! (the bots haven't noticed yet) Thank you all who've contributed during this process, especially User:Finetooth whose eye for prose and the WP:MOS have been invaluable. henrik•talk 17:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Congrats! If you are not aware, the primary author/nominator is allowed to add {{featured article}} to the bottom of the page to give the star at the very top. -MBK004 19:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations! Knew it would get there. The Land (talk) 18:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Should this say "minimum"?

I don't understand the following sentence:

Visitors could only view the ship from two levels, and the maximum distance was only 5 metres (16 ft).

Is the sentence trying to say that the spectators were kept at a distance? If so, then I think it should be "minimum". Even better would be something like, "Visitors could only view the ship from two levels, and from no closer than 5 metres (16 ft)." I'm not sure what the word "only" contributes to either part of the sentence. Johntex\talk 00:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it was indeed the maximum distance (the visitors could get no further from the ship). The building was very cramped, little more than a shell built around the hull. The current museum is much larger, allowing visitors to view the entire ship at once. henrik•talk 00:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for clarifying. I see what is meant now. I don't think I would ever have gotten that from the way the article currently reads. How about something more obvious, such as "The viewing area was small: visitors could view the ship from only two viewing levels that were no more than 5 metres (16 ft) in width."? Johntex\talk 00:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I've added a sentence preceding that one[2] , to clarify what this one is referring to. Do you think that is enough? I think that "no more than 5m in width" might be a bit misleading. But feel free to try yourself, hopefully you can come up with something better :-) henrik•talk 00:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that is definitely clearer, thank you. The second part is still a little troubling for me because I don't know what it is trying to convey. Is the problem that the viewing distance was too close and therefore did not offer a wide-anlge perspective on the entire ship? Johntex\talk 00:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. henrik•talk 00:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, I think I understand now. I made a change to try to make this more obvious.[3] Please see what you think. Johntex\talk 01:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] “Groot[e]”

This article needs either to adopt one correct spelling, or to note that two spellings are correct. —SlamDiego←T 13:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know this was a way of marking that this Arendt was the elder son of Hybert. Swedes didn't actually have family names in today's sense until later in the 17th century.
Peter Isotalo 13:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, but that doesn't address the point at-hand. —SlamDiego←T 20:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

And I see that the name continues to be spelled one way in one part of the article, and the other way in other parts. —SlamDiego←T 23:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Considering the naming practices of early 17th century Sweden, it would probably be more appropriate to refer to him by just hist first name rather than his patronym, but I settled for a compromise.
Peter Isotalo 07:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay. I just didn't want him to be said to be both “de Groot” and “de Groote” unless each were correct and the reader were told as much. —SlamDiego←T 13:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IP addresses

Perhaps it is just me, but it seems a number of IPs have been making changes to this article without any remarks or any good reason. Is it just me? Cromdog (talk) 00:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not just you, but the numbers are slim. Since 6 January there have been only 6 IP edits to this page, but at least 3 of those were reverted. -MBK004 01:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
True, but I don't remember this many IPs last year when I was keeping a close watch after my GA review. Still, I'm going to keep a close watch, because the one I edited today was changing the wikilinks around. Cromdog (talk) 01:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Apparantly the the comic strip Get Fuzzy featured Vasa as a joke yesterday and today. I suspect we might see one tomorrow as well, but I don't feel that this really merits a specific mention in the article.
Peter Isotalo 09:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I removed something about that strip yesterday as well... Cromdog (talk) 12:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
It certainly shows in the visitor stats. I'd say we had over 10 000 readers that found their way here from that strip. henrik•talk 18:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
The first time I heard of the Vasa was in the strip Get Fuzzy. Why is it not listed in the Literature and popular culture section? Should I add it, or will it just be reverted? Also, was Wasa flatbread named after the ship? If so, that's something I'd like to see in the article. Actually, it looks like the bread I was thinking of is called Wasabröd and was named after King Gustavus Vasa, and not the ship.Rich (talk) 00:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Vasa can't be considered a significant aspect of Get Fuzzy just because it has been featured in a few strips (even if this might have been the first time some people have been acquainted with the ship). Just about all things named "Vasa/Wasa" in Sweden ultimately go back to Gustav Vasa and his dynasty. For the etymology of the ship's name, see the first footnote.
Peter Isotalo 14:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recording

In anticipation of Featured Status, I'm making a spoken recording of this page. This is a friendly notice in case Peter Isotalo wishes to [challenge the authenticity of my English] as being too Chinky. .:DavuMaya:. 16:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How long was the voyage really?

The lead currently says the ship traveled "less than a nautical mile", which is 1.852 km (and is appropriately glossed as 2 km). But the map clearly shows it traveling farther, pretty close to 2.5 km. Rather than slapping a "contradict" tag on a featured article, I'll change the lead to read "about one nautical mile"; but it would be better if someone could research this point. --207.176.159.90 (talk) 03:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but I believe its because the coastline has eroded over the centuries (thus the trouble in simply FINDING the dang thing) or it was measuring the distance from start, not the distance actualy travled. Cromdog (talk) 04:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
If you look at the map, the ship didn't actually set sail until around the southern tip of Gamla stan. From what I can tell, the distance from where she set sail to the place of sinking is less than a nautical mile.
Peter Isotalo 06:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks, that covers it. I should have looked more carefully. --207.176.159.90 (talk) 23:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Honestly, who cares?..It was a crap ship and it sank almost immediately.... a bit like my first dinghy. ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil Wardle (talk • contribs) 08:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Aw.. yeah, Vasa wasn't exactly the most successful example of martitime engineering :-) henrik•talk 08:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Decision-making culture

The analysis of group decision-making in an authoritarive top-down culture was given new impetus following the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster. Little analysis of the comparable decision-making process in the Vasa disaster seems to have surfaced in this article: have the two never been compared in print?--Wetman (talk) 04:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] To founder = to sink

The article states that the ship 'foundered and sank', but to founder means to sink by means of filling with water, as opposed to, say, sinking by being overloaded or sinking by runaway hull compression (submarine). If one says 'foundered', one should not follow it with 'and sank'. JeffreyMeunier (talk) 11:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

True, but I'd wager that a significant minority of readers may not know exactly what foundering is, which is why it was phrased somewhat redundantly. henrik•talk 18:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism alert

I noticed elements which appear to be vandalism. Could the autor look it up?

[Sorry if this is not the place. I have no idea how else to let the community know about this, since I'm a first time user of wikipedia.]

Weird element #1: The king's plans for the Polish campaign and for securing Sweden's bitch interests required a strong naval presence in the Baltic.[3]

Weird element #2: Just before Vasa was ordered, work at the Stockholm slut shipyard was led by Antonius Monier, with Dutch-born Henrik Hybertsson as hired shipbuilder. 15:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for reporting this. The featured article of the day tends to attract quite a bit of both readers and vandalism. This is usually quickly reverted, but not always quickly enough that readers such as yourself won't see it. It's one of the downsides of an encyclopedia anyone can edit, but since the featured article often brings in many new users just trying out editing wikipedia it is not usually locked down. henrik•talk 17:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)