Talk:Battle of Radzymin (1920)/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Harrison49 (talk · contribs) 22:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- Prose is good throughout.
- B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
- Layout and all the rest is good and consistent. There are six links to disambiguation pages which need changing according to the tool.
Half done I've fixed twothree of these, so there are nowfourthree requiring attention according to the tool, of which Dybów seems to be already correct so I don't understand why the tool is listing it as needing fixing.--Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)- Thanks for doing that. It might be that Dybów is linked to elsewhere in the article. Harrison49 (talk) 20:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Done, 3 remaining names disambiguated. //Halibutt 21:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for doing that. It might be that Dybów is linked to elsewhere in the article. Harrison49 (talk) 20:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- Layout and all the rest is good and consistent. There are six links to disambiguation pages which need changing according to the tool.
- A. Prose quality:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- Sections are all backed by references. One web link for Szczepański (2002) no longer works and needs to be changed or removed.
- Done I've fixed this by replacing it with a link to an earlier version of the same article on the Wayback Machine. Incidentally, I've had to change it from {{cite journal}} to {{cite study}} in order to do so, but the display seems unaffected. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- Sections are all backed by references. One web link for Szczepański (2002) no longer works and needs to be changed or removed.
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- References are reliable and well placed.
- C. No original research:
- See above.
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- The article covers the major aspects and remains focused.
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- The article maintains a neutral point of view.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- The article does not appear to be subject to any edit warring.
- 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:
- All images are either within the public domain or published under Creative Commons licensing.
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- Captions are informative and well used.
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
Once the change to an external link and links to disambiguation pages are made, I will be able to pass this article. Harrison49 (talk) 13:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)- Pass or Fail:
- A very good article. Good luck with the A-class review. Harrison49 (talk) 19:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- Pass or Fail:
Bias
[edit]It is generally accepted by western historians that the battle of Warsaw was a draw. Both the Poles (who had seen their invasion of Russia all the way to Kiev reversed) and the Russians were totally exhausted, the Russians also having outrun their supply lines. All talk of "decisive victory" by the Poles is pure nationalist propaganda. 2A00:23C4:B617:7D01:2CC0:9BBF:990F:17CF (talk) 07:36, 16 August 2023 (UTC)