Jump to content

Talk:Battle of Warsaw (1831)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Piotrus (talk · contribs) 06:41, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    Few minor comments:  Done 1) "Straż Bezpieczeństwa, Gwardia Narodowa and Jewish City Guard". Why the first two are in Polish and redlinked, but the third one is in English and not linked? Please standardize, preferably so that all use both Polish and English name, and have a link. 2) I have also asked if a native speaker would like to review this as well for prose quality.  Done 2) Shouldn't Army of Congress Poland be linked from the article, probably from the first use of the phrase Polish Army? 3) Done (Umiński, Dembiński, Józef Bem, Kazimierz Małachowski) - please add first names, otherwise their omission is jarring 4)  Done abbreviation Gen. should be expanded to General; usage is not consistent - also check for capitalization of General and general. 5) Done I recommend to use the term Sejm rather than Parliament, after explaining it upon first use (..."Sejm (Polish parliament)". 6)  Done "For the Taking of Warsaw by Assault in 1831" medal is probably notable and should be red-linked; I wouldn't be surprised if it had a ru wiki article. 7)  Done Is Tomasz Strzeżek notable enough to be redlinked?
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    1)  Not done Please standardize to one citation style. Primarily - chose whether all refs have a (1999) date or not in their footnote version. 2) For Bordziłowski, is it possible to find out the author of the section cited?
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
    Few minor buts. 1) "of what became known in Polish historiography as the November Uprising" - only in Polish historiography? I think also in English, and probably many others. This statement should be referenced or rewritten; also Polish historiography, if the term survives, should be ilinked.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    1)  Done Please add a paragraph to the background section explaining why did the November Uprising happened in the first place. 2)  Not done "Ramorino's II Corps" nor he himself are not mentioned in opposing forces; please rectify. Ditto for Tomasz Łubieński's Corps. Both are mentioned at the very beginning of initial clashes, and their sudden appearance is confusing. 3)  Done "To gain support of the Polish parliament" - the parliament should be linked (Sejm of Congress Poland, most likely). 4)  Done "annihilated the Polish battalion defending it" - that's a bit grandiose; if there were no survivors it should be stated clearly 5)  Done "Other writers joined in to celebrate" - who? Can they be named? Presumably, they were Russian?
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A.  Done Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    Missing some licensing information (usually US or Europe/Poland, refer to [1] for how-to), please add to: File:Russian attack on Warsaw 1831.PNG, File:Russian assault on Wola redoubt 1831.JPG, File:Sowinski.jpg and File:L` ordre regne a Varsovie 1831.PNG 2) incorrect license - File:General Staff of Polish Army during November Uprising.JPG should have PD tags instead of uploader's invalid CC, ditto for File:5th, 6th, 7th Infantry Regiment of Polish Army of November Uprising.JPG, File:Płyta Pomnik Iwana Paskiewicza Muzeum Wojska Polskiego w Warszawie 05.jpg
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    On hold while the relatively minor issues raised are addressed. Excellent job! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per Piotrus's request, I'll give a second readthrough later for any minor remaining prose issues. Piotrus, just ping me when all the above is resolved to your satisfaction, and I can give it a final check. Thanks to you both for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:49, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding...
  • 1-A-3 - the first names are linked in the same section, I didn't feel the need to add them every time this or that person is mentioned. I followed your advice anyway.
  • 1-A-5 - Done, but I'm not sure it looks that good. Any input from a native speaker would be appreciated, I fear we're falling into the old "Szlachcic"/"Szlachcianka" trap - that is importing words into English rather than using words that are already there.
  • 1-A-6 - There indeed is.
  • 1-A-7 As an author of a couple of notable books and a scholar - he probably is.
  • 2-A-1 Take a closer look please, it already is standardised. There's no year of publication in the short citation, unless there is more than one publication by the same author, in which case the year is used to distinguish the two. I believe this system is consistent enough, no need to change it. Or is there. The alternative would be to use clean Chicago, with disambiguation done by a shortened title. However, I believe the year is more helpful if the titles are in Polish and not easy to remember for a foreigner. And they are.
  • 2-C It is my impression that the name is mostly fixed in Polish historiography, meaning that it's always the "November Uprising". In other traditions there's no fixed name: November Insurrection, Polish-Russian War (that's the term Davies uses), Polish Revolution and so on. But I don't claim that the term is unknown or unused outside of Poland, merely that it's been coined by Polish historiography and not, say, American or British. Any idea how to better word it?
    • The point is that it is known in Polish historiography under a Polish name, that translates into Uprising as well as Insurrection. I'd actually remove the "in Polish hist." from the lead. (Please make sure it is hyperlinked when used elsewhere in the article, it's an important article that needs to be written one day). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Working on the last points now. Saving not to lose what I wrote here :) //Halibutt 14:53, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


  • 3-A-1 - I added a paragraph as per your suggestion. I'm not sure it fits in this article though. The article is about the battle, not the entire uprising and I believe if the reader wanted to know the political and social background of the uprising, he would rather look for it in the article on November Uprising, but I won't insist.
  • 3-A-2 - because they did not take part in the battle, which is explained both in the "Initial clashes" and further down the road. I can add a line to "Opposing forces", but that would run against the title of the section. Also, I would have to list plenty other forces that did not take part in the battle on either side. Not sure if that's such a good idea. Or perhaps I misunderstood what you mean?
On to pictures now. //Halibutt 23:36, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, thanks. //Halibutt 22:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On my list for tonight/tomorrow--looking forward to it, Khazar2 (talk) 22:08, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Made it through about half today; this one's a big one! This seems like a well-sourced and thorough article, but you might consider asking for a read from WP:GOCE before your next nomination--there's lots of work to be done here, as you can see from the edits I've made so far. Thanks for all your work on it! -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Piotrus, I'm all done here. There were a lot of minor grammar issues--I can't swear I got them all, but I got enough that this can pass criterion 1a without blushing. Again, thanks to you both for your work! -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your assistance; I'll pass it now. Excellent work, guys! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both, gentlemen. It was a pleasure. //Halibutt 06:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Warsaw_(1831)/GA1&oldid=1080937350"