Wikipedia:Peer review/Warsaw Uprising (1794)/archive2

Warsaw Uprising (1794)

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
The article used to be a Featured Article since 2006. However, with time Wikipedia grew more serious and the referencing style used in the article quickly became obsolete. In 2009 the article was demoted, mainly due to insufficient in-line citations. As the original author of most of this article I recently decided to update it and perhaps improve it back to FA status.

In October 2014 I completely revamped the referencing system, added plenty of in-line citations, added additional references to statements that could raise concerns, applied various MoS fixes, added OCLC numbers to pre-ISBN refs and so on. However, since most of the article was written almost a decade ago, it might need some more love. Any suggestions on how to improve the article would be highly appreciated.

Thanks, //Halibutt 21:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Curly Turkey

I'm approaching this as someone with almost no background in Eastern European history. Feel free to revert any of my copyedits.

1. What ENGVAR is this written in? I see "radicalisation" and "organizing", and both "center" and "centre", "maneuvers"...
2. You don't need {{en icon}} for the English sources—it's assumed they're in English unless otherwise noted.
3. Alt text would be nice for the images
4. You might want to look into {{sfnm}} and {{efn}} (not neccessaary—just a suggestion)
5. Did you know that when you specify "|ref= harv" that you can use {{sfn}}s like {{sfn|Pistor|Prawdzic-Chotomski|p=37}} instead of {{sfn|Pistor & Prawdzic-Chotomski|p=37}}?
6. Times of day should be in figures rather than words per WP:MOSTIME; also, it's not clear whether the times are in the morning or afternoon
7. Sometimes there's "toward" and sometimes "toward"—should settle on one
8. Uncited material needs to be cited:
   1. However, all the Russian assaults were repelled with heavy losses on both sides and the Poles started a counter-attack towards the Russian positions at Miodowa, Senatorska, Leszno and Podwale Streets, but with little success.
   2. Also the Russian battalion under Major Titov, stationed at Bonifraterska Street, had been attacked around 7 o'clock by the Poles. After four hours' fighting, the Russians retreated toward the city's western outskirts.
   3. This marked the end of the first day of the uprising.

Okay, one by one then:

1. It's supposed to be BrE but apparently I missed some spots. Plus as a non-native speaker I'm a little lost when it comes to the -ise vs. -ize Oxford rule.
   1. My understanding is that in BrEng you can choose either -ise or -ize, but you can't mix them—so just choose the one you prefer. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 03:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
2. Yeah, I know, but it looks better that way (when the icon is there for other languages). Personal preference I guess.
   1. Alright, well, I don't think there's a rule against it&nsbp... Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 03:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
3. Done
4. Thanks, I'll bear that in mind.
5. Actually no, I didn't. Thanks!
6. Done
7. Good spotting! Fixed.
8. ...
   1. Actually all those are sourced in the following sentences, but I added refs anyway, just to be sure.
   2. same here
   3. No can do. I can't remember any source mentioning explicitly. However, as there were no further major actions, it's pretty much a case of WP:BLUE. Otherwise I would have to add a note explaining that available sources do not mention any further actions. Bizarre if you asked me. //Halibutt 02:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Is there a reason to mention #3? I mean, as the narrative continues the next day anyways, I don't see what this sentence adds to the article. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 03:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Lead

1. per WP:LEADCITE, he lead normally doesn't require inline citations, as all that information should be cited in the body, unless the info is particularly controversial and subject ot people trying to change it. Are the inline cites in the lead for controversial aspects? If not, get rid of them.
2. |place=[[Warsaw]], [[Poland]]: should this not be to Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth?
3. [[Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth|Polish]]: same question
4. A witness to the fighting was Jan Piotr Norblin, a French-born Polish painter who created a set of sketches and paintings of the struggle.: Is this really notable enough for the lead? And would the artwork likely have its own article?
5. The isolated Russian forces resisted in several areas for two more days.: This reads like a cliffhanger—they hung in for two days, and then what happened? They were annihilated? captured? surrendered? Russian reinforcements arrived and turned the tide?

1. Done
2. This one's tricky. Technically speaking the Constitution of May 3, 1791 along with the Reciprocal Guarantee of Two Nations abolished the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth and created a single unitary state called Rzeczpospolita Polska - the Republic of Poland. However, as soon afterwards in 1792 Poland was invaded and in 1793 the Grodno Sejm declared the constitution null and void under pressure from Russia. Finally, as the uprising was precisely against the people behind the Grodno Sejm and in support of the provisions of the constitution, it's pretty complicated to state what was the official name of the country at the time. For sure everyone referred to it as Poland back then, but whether the full version was "Rzeczpospolita Obojga Narodów" or "Rzeczpospolita Polska" is disputable. I chose Poland for simplicity and because Warsaw was never in Lithuania, so it's safe to use Poland, leaving up to the reader to decide whether he/she uses it as a geographical or political term. However, as the article on Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth covers the entire period, regardless of the actual name changes, it's better to use that link at times, as it's more descriptive than the link to Poland.
   • Okay, best to leave it then, I guess. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 04:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
3. No idea really. Any article/book on the uprising is filled with Norblin's sketches and he is mentioned in almost every one of them. But whether he is that important? Not sure. I'll move that part further down.
4. All of the above, see the last sentence in "18 April" section. Any suggestions how to word that? //Halibutt 03:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Prelude

1. the Polish Army was being reduced: why was it being reduced? Was it legally required to? Lack of funds?
2. Upon receiving news of Kościuszko's proclamation: what was this a proclamation of?
3. The King dispatched [[Hetman]] [[Piotr Ożarowski]] and the: with the two links bumping into each other, it appears as if "Hetman" were Ożarowski's first name. As Hetman is an unfamilar term, I'd give it a brief description—maybe something like: "The King dispatched Piotr Ożarowski, who as Hetman was the second-highest military commander after the king,".
4. Marshal of the Sejm Stanisław Małachowski: what's "the Sjem"?

1. You're right, that one was definitely unclear. Explained now.
2. It's wikilinked to a separate article. Do you believe we should expand it in this article?
3. Done
4. Wikilinked Marshal of the Sejm. In short: a little more than a speaker of parliament :) //Halibutt 03:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Opposing forces

• the royal uhlan squadrons: what's an "uhlan"?

Wikilinked uhlan. As the word is present in most English dictionaries ([1], [2], [3]) I doubt it needs to be explained in the body of the article. Or does it? //Halibutt 03:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• • There are lots of words in the dictionary most people won't know. As an encyclopaedia is aimed at a general readership, I would assume they didn't know terms like this. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 04:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Opening moves

• [[pułkownik|Colonel]]: this is an WP:EGG as it appears to link to Colonel rather than the Polish term
• to the Castle Square: as this is a proper noun, does it normally take "the"?

As to the military ranks, I'm lost. I used to stick to Polish ranks, especially in historical contexts. However, many people tend to dislike them for some reason and "correct", say, Chorąży to Warrant Officer. Which is definitely a step in a bad direction. Which is why I used [[pułkownik|Colonel]] here. Anyway, the article links to Polkovnik and not Colonel. I will follow any advice you give.

• Hmmm ... I'm not much familiar with military stuff, so maybe a specialist should chip in here, but I don't think it should stay the way it is (per WP:EGG). Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 04:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

As to Plac Zamkowy - no idea. Back then it was not an official name as such but rather a descriptive name ("market place" vs. "Market Place"), but in modern times it's a proper name. //Halibutt 03:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• If it's a descriptive, then it should be in lower case. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 04:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

City Centre

1. attempted to use to take them under crossfire: I don't understand
2. two companies and armed with two cannons: two cannons each, or total?
3. the Warsaw Castle: again, is "the" normal here?
4. leaving Igelström to his fate: what fate was that?
5. the Capuchin's churchand monastery: what's "the Capuchin"?

1. changed to [they] captured the Krasiński Palace which the Poles had been using to fire on them from behind.. Is it better?
   • I think so. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 04:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
2. two canons in total. Any idea how to clarify that?
   • "two companies, each armed with a cannon"? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 04:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
3. No idea. I used the article instinctively. As you probably know Polish doesn't have articles, but in Polish usage some names are kind of stronger than others. Hence when someone says Zamek (literally "Castle", but used to denote a group of officers surrounding the president of Poland in pre-war years), it's clear the translation would be "the Castle" rather than "castle". But in this case - I'm not sure.
   • Unless you're sure the "the" should be there, it probably shouldn't in these cases. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 04:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
4. It's described in full in the "April 18" section. Any suggestions?
5. It used to be wikilinked right above, only a couple sentences back. However, I switched the link from capuchin order to this particular church (red link, but we'll work on that). Is it better now?
   • Yeah, I think so. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 04:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• I'm going to take a break here. Ping me if I don't stop back in the next few days. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

@Curly Turkey: - no rush, just pinging you to let you know I replied to all of your questions above - and fixed what I could. Thanks again for all the hard work you're doing. //Halibutt 03:47, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• I'll be too busy for the next couple of days to continue with the review. If I don't return after that, ping me again. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 04:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. I picked up where Curly left off and copyedited the rest per my standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 03:02, 5 November 2014 (UTC)