Talk:1919 Polish coup attempt in Lithuania/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 21:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this starting soon. Regards, MathewTownsend (talk) 21:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

review

I am completely ignorant of this history, so please forgive any mistakes I make in my suggestions!
There is a dead link, according to the tool.

Deroted. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:23, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

lede

perhaps lede could be simplified for those of us not familiar with the history.
"failed attempt by Józef Piłsudski" - could some context be given, such as "failed attempt by Polish statesman Józef Piłsudski"?
"The coup d'etat was to be carried out by the Polish Military Organization (PMO)" - could this be given some context such as: "The coup d'etat was to be carried out by the secret military body, the Polish Military Organization (PMO), created by Piłsudski"?
"and planned to be implemented in August 1919". was planned? (by Piłsudski, or whom?) The way it reads now it sounds like the coup did the planning, when it was what was planned.
"The coup d'etat was to be carried out by the Polish Military Organization (PMO) and planned to be implemented in August 1919. The coup was designed to portray the coup as an initiative by local Lithuanians to free their government of German influence." - too many uses of the word "coup"
"and the unwillingness of these activists to join the Polish cause, who in some cases were even unaware of their designated roles in the planned coup." - how about "the unwillingness of these activist to join the Polish cause, and who in some cases were unaware of their designated roles in the plan"? (how could this be?)
"After the Sejny Uprising - good link, but could some context be in the article? e.g. After the Sejny Uprising, a Polish revolt against authorities in August 1919...?

I've rewritten the lead to address the issues raised. I've added a short description (referenced) of PMO to the first mention of this organization in the "Preparations" section.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:23, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

background

"~~Earlier~~ Poland and Lithuania formed one state, the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, from the Union of Lublin in 1569 to the Third Partition in 1795." - could "earlier" be removed, as it is vague and doesn't clarify?
"the proposed federation scheme" - is "scheme" POV here, as it is a derogatory term?
Please feel free to revert my copy edits[1]

"As tensions rose, the Allied Supreme Council - some context re Allied Supreme Council?
"Faced with pressure from the Entente" - what is the Entente?

"and even more tensions between Poland and Lithuania." - and even greater tensions between Poland and Lithuania?
"Instead he thought there were enough Polish sympathizers in Lithuania to stage a coup d'etat that would topple the government of Lithuania" - how about - Since he thought there were enough Polish sympathizers in Lithuania to stage a coup d'etat, he decided to plan one to topple the Lithuanian government?

Fixed issues raised above. Sentence with Allied Supreme Counil expanded and referenced. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:23, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

preparations

"Saxon Volunteers" - who are these?

Frankly, I have not a clue. Is it important to this article? I'd think not... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:23, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leon Wasilewski - his mention needs some context, as he is mentioned later also.
"Negotiations broke down and Wasilewski left Kaunas on August 7. The negotiations were also used to evaluate viability of the coup, preparedness of PMO, and attitude of Lithuanian diplomats towards a union with Poland." - a little rewording needed as two sentences in a row start with "negotiations".
"claimed" is one of those words to avoid.
"After the failed Wasilewski's mission," - needs rewording. Also, what was his mission?
"free" - what is the purpose of the scare quotes here? And "invited"?
"the Polish government would maintain it had not" - should be - the Polish government maintained it had not.

Addressed issues raised. Wasilewski identified as a diplomat. I am not sure how to replace the word claimed here, however. What would you suggest? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:23, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

reply

MOS:Words to avoid recommends "said" because it is unbiased. (read it! See below) MathewTownsend (talk) 18:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---Synonyms for said---

... reveal, point out, expose, explain, find, note, observe, insist, speculate, surmise, claim, assert, admit, confess, deny ...

Said, stated, described, wrote, and according to are almost always neutral and accurate. Extra care is needed with more loaded terms. For example, to write that a person revealed, pointed out, exposed, explained, or found something can imply that it is true, where a neutral account might preclude such an endorsement. To write that someone noted, observed, insisted, speculated, or surmised can suggest the degree of the speaker's carefulness, resoluteness, or access to evidence when that is unverifiable.

To write that someone claimed or asserted something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence. Similarly, be judicious in the use of admit, confess, and deny, particularly of living people, because these verbs can convey guilt when that is not a settled matter.

These are my suggestions so far. I'll put the article on hold for now. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I changed it to described, seems accurate and npov. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

reply

I completed some copy edits to fix grammar, a little POV etc.[2] (hopefully you won't object and please do fix any errors I may have made).
I feel like I understand what happened now. I think the article does a good job of describing it, and the article is good to go. Just a few comments, but if you can't, then ok:
The only reason "Saxon Volunteers" matters, is that you mention them in the article so they must have had a purpose/function - but ok, no big deal.
"pressure from the Entente" - I continue to wonder what the Entente is.
It would be wonderful if you could provide a map!

MathewTownsend (talk) 18:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Entente linked to Allies of World War I. I have also added a map, I hope it is useful. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My concerns have been addressed to my satisfaction.

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:

B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Provides references to all sources:

B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Main aspects are addressed:

B. Remains focused:
Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
PASS!

Great article. Thanks! MathewTownsend (talk) 22:55, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]