Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/2008/Failed
 | This Military history WikiProject page is an archive, log collection, or currently inactive page; it is kept primarily for historical interest. |  |
Failed
[edit]- The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Closed but not promoted --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I've rewritten this article, and it has since been rated as B-Class. I think it could make an A-Class, and would appreciate some input on how it can be improved. Thanks. -- Nudve (talk) 07:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Comments—I'm not sure on the specifics of WP:LEAD, but I am a fan of either an entirely unsourced lead or an entirely referenced lead. That way there is no confusing on whether the rest of the lead should also be referenced (the referenced material should just be repeated in the main body of the text). It is a well referenced article on a touchy subject, given the widespread nationalism found on Wikipedia. There are some MoS issues, as outlined below:
Thanks for your comments!
- About the lead: one ref is for a quote, which includes the word "terrorist". It could be problematic per WP:TERRORIST. If you think its important, it could be rephrased. Actually, I'm discussing this lead with another user at the talk page now, so I'll see how that develops.
- Update: Following a discussion, the lead was slightly changed. -- Nudve (talk) 07:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Numbers between parenthesis (conversions) should not have the units spelled out.
- I've removed the "pounds" conversion.
- In all instances there should be a between the number and the unit (whether abbreviated or not).
- I'm not sure I understand. Can you clarify? It looks like space.
- If possible, dates should be delinked—this is becoming the preference.
- I found one outside the lead, and delinked it.
Overall, however, it looks good. You will probably be asked to get someone to copyedit the article, although I'm not sure if this will be a requirement for the A-class. I would see if anybody is interested, regardless. JonCatalán(Talk) 22:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Agains, thanks a lot! -- Nudve (talk) 06:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- To clarify, there should be conversions, but the units of the converted numbers should be abbreviated. For the second point, apparently the no wiki tags didn't work for that. Basically, the space should be created by a & nbsp ; (all together), instead of a physical space (this way the number and the unit will remain on the same line; otherwise, there's a chance that they will break lines). Hope this is clearer! JonCatalán(Talk) 15:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Done -- Nudve (talk) 18:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- To clarify, there should be conversions, but the units of the converted numbers should be abbreviated. For the second point, apparently the no wiki tags didn't work for that. Basically, the space should be created by a & nbsp ; (all together), instead of a physical space (this way the number and the unit will remain on the same line; otherwise, there's a chance that they will break lines). Hope this is clearer! JonCatalán(Talk) 15:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Agains, thanks a lot! -- Nudve (talk) 06:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
![[1]](http://img129.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=51802_Map_of_battle_of_Kostiuchnowka_1916_122_795lo.jpg){kind=link}
Support JonCatalán(Talk) 20:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- I have to retract my support, due to neutrality issues. JonCatalán(Talk) 05:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Comments Some MoS comments:
- First, don't start headings with 'the' or 'an' or any words such as those.
- Next, put in-text citations after, not before, punctuation marks. Other than that, looks pretty good. I'll read it through later and leave more in-depth comments. Cheers, ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line 16:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Quick comment-clarify what type of boobytraps under 'Jenin' section. It says it was 113 kg, but what was? ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line 16:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for your comments, Redmarkviolinist. As it turns out, the article is not quite as stable as I originally thought. There appears to be some dispute over the lead. Therefore, I'd rather wait for it to settle before making minor tweaks. Again, thanks! -- Nudve (talk) 17:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- That is fine, but these issues still need to be fixed before A-class. Cheers, ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line 20:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I've clarified the bombs issue and renamed the section. I agree on the inline citations, but can you specify where you see them? because a search for ">." didn't find anything. Thanks. -- Nudve (talk) 07:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- That is fine, but these issues still need to be fixed before A-class. Cheers, ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line 20:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for your comments, Redmarkviolinist. As it turns out, the article is not quite as stable as I originally thought. There appears to be some dispute over the lead. Therefore, I'd rather wait for it to settle before making minor tweaks. Again, thanks! -- Nudve (talk) 17:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Quick comment-clarify what type of boobytraps under 'Jenin' section. It says it was 113 kg, but what was? ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line 16:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - this article appears to have been subject to several disputes recently, including a copyright violation, and now contains a neutrality tag; it thus fails criteria A2. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - I'd have to oppose because of the neutrality tag alone, that would not even let it pass a GA review, especially with the disputes surrounding the article. I'd recommend working on getting it to GA first then bring it back here for A class review if the article stabilizes. --Banime (talk) 19:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Not promoted - please nominate only when you have time to respond to issues with the article, ok? :-/ —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 02:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Just passed a GA. I'd like to go for A and maybe FA soon. ṜedMarkViolinistDrop me a line 19:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Comments - Just a few points I noticed:
- The following require a reference/citation:
- "The heavily scaled-down Confederate forces consisted of approximately 1,500 men, under the overall command of Major-General John C. Breckinridge and Brigadier-General Basil Duke."
- "both sides prepared to resume combat the following day."
- Citation 10 and 24 are the same; please combine them.
- Books listed in "References" should have their ISBN number included.
Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Added most of them. ṜedMarkViolinistDrop me a line 18:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- And I've done three more. --ROGER DAVIES talk 04:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Support - 1.0x104 times better than when the last ACR happened. (DISCLAIMER: I have done substantial copyediting on this article since early december). Cam (Chat) 22:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment You have one dead external link that needs to be located and either removed or replaced. Two disambig links need to located and corrected if possible. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- References comments (this version)
- What makes http://www.bencaudill.com/ a reliable source?
- Refs 9 and 28 can be combined (I think?) using WP:REFNAME.
- Refs 14 and 21 need periods at the end, to be consistent.
- You have web references linked just in the "notes" section (i.e. ref#9) and linked in the References with a shortened footnote (i.e. ref#15). Please be consistent - put all the web stuff in the in-line citations as evidenced by Lexington-class battlecruiser, or put it all below like USS Hawaii (CB-3).
- Otherwise, refs look good and formatted correctly, and Tom got the dead links before me. Cheers, —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 04:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Comment
- To be honest, it's a good article but it needs to be expanded before it can get to an A article. This is just my opinion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bernstein2291 (talk • contribs)
- Conditional Support
- I've {{fixbunching}}'d some stuff and added a fact tag for you to cite.
- "John C. Breckinridge—former Vice-President of the United States, and also candidate for U.S. President in 1860—the commander..." Rephrase this, maybe something like "John C. Breckinridge, the former Vice-President of the United States and Southern Democratic candidate for President in [[United States Presidential Election, 1860|the 1860 election]]."
- "Most of the companies had been transferred to the Army of Northern Virginia to help in the defense of Richmond.[10]" This is confusing, does it mean most of Breckinridge's command had been transferred?
- "who stopped just so they could fire a volley into the Union cavalry." Why would they stop "just" to shoot at the enemy? That is what is normally done in war, after all.
- "After repelling a final charge," Does this mean another one after the charge just described, or the charge you just mentioned? Please clarify.
- The map of Stoneman's advance and the picture of the hill sandwich on my laptop, please move one of them.
- "Breckinridge ordered his field officers to inspect the troops and to report back with the condition of his troops." Saying troops too many times in a sentence, perhaps "Breckinridge ordered his field officers to inspect and report back on the condition of his troops."
- None of these should be difficult to fix, so please do so and it will, in my opinion, meet the criteria. – Joe Nutter 19:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- Support with few comments
- It would be good if you could get rid of the fact tag placed in the infobox.
- The Union forces consisted of about 4,500 men from a variety of different units, including several units which had participated in smaller-scale raids into Southwest Virginia earlier in the conflict. - this needs a ref.
- On December 14, the Union regiments began to push Duke's cavalry back toward Abingdon, Virginia. The next day, Stoneman and his cavalry went into camp at Glade Spring, Virginia, which was approximately 13 miles (21 km) west of Marion. - needs ref.
- Current ref. number 9 lacks accessdate and other additional information. --Eurocopter (talk) 20:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - are these concerns going to be addressed? The last time this article was edited was on January 30th... —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 20:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Suggest that this nomination be closed as unsuccessful, the nominator has not responded in several weeks. Cla68 (talk) 02:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed: No consensus for promtion. --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I think this article is close to A class status. Thus please check it and help us to improve it.--Seyyed(t-c) 02:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - some of the sources are unreliable. The one by the Islamist politician who lead the Jamaat is most definitely not reliable. Another is quite old, by an author who died in 1914. What type of organisation is "Idarah Qasmiyyah Deoband" in Uttar Pradesh? Is it an academic publisher? The vast majority of the sources are written from a religious focus. Are there any sources that are more historical? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- Can you clarify which sources do you mean? Who is the Islamist politician who lead the Jamaat? Unfortunately I couldn't find the old source? Religious sources can be historical too. Let's review them one by one.--Seyyed(t-c) 06:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- Are you talking about Maududi? If yes, how does his modern political thought impact his historical one. I agree is not a netural source on Islamism and Pakistani politics.
- Secondly the battle has religious significance. All sources (every single one) will one way or another trace their roots to Muslim traditions. The best source (accoriding to watt et. al.) is the Qur'an itself. It is also the least detailed source. These next best sources comprise of the hadith or the sira both bearing significance in the Islamic faith.Bless sins (talk) 21:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- Maududi is a religious scholar too and we consider him as a reliable source in Islamic issues.
- Quran and Hadith are primary sources, thus we need to use secondary ones. But we haven't used them in the article except one quotation.--Seyyed(t-c) 11:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
- Banu Qurayza is a separate battle and I think it should be omitted from the template. What's your idea?--Seyyed(t-c) 08:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- New Encyclopedia of Islam has also separated these two issues. --Seyyed(t-c) 11:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- Actually the New Encyclopedia does mention the Qurayza at the end. The thing is that I haven't seen any author talk of the "the battle of Qurayzah". If you want we could remove the Qurayza casualties from the template; however, their strength remains as during the battle Muhammad had to sent a contingent of 200-300 men to protect Medina from the Qurayza.Bless sins (talk) 21:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- The BQ incident should be mentioned in short, there is a comprehensive article on this in existence. Whether the BQ should be included in the template (figures, place) is another question. I tend to think they shouldn't. Str1977 (talk) 18:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
- Lets understand the different situations: the Qurayza were considered a threat by the Muslims(as they had entered into negotiations) whilst the Meccan army was still camped outside Medina. That is why the prophet, who was outnumbered on the trench, still sent 200+ men to defend Medina from a possible Qurayza attack. This is clearly within the scope of this article.
- The Qurayza were besieged after the Meccan army left. Whether this belongs is up in debate.
- Thus, the strength of the Qurayza belongs in the template. As for the number of them killed, it is to be discussed.Bless sins (talk) 01:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- Currently, the article has it the other way, restricting itself to the Battle of the Trench proper, in which the BQ were not actively involved. Hence they do not belong in the template. Str1977 (talk) 07:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think you understand me. The Qurayza were involved in negotiations. Why is that important? Well according to Watt, and other sources, the Muslims defeated the enemy primarily through diplomacy. If you look at the casualties, the 10,000 strong invading army suffered only 3, indicating that there was little physical battle involved. As far as troop amassment is concerned, the Muslim did amass there troops in the direction to which the Qurayza were. See Battle_of_the_Trench#Muslim_response.
- Whether we should include the siege of the Qurayza is up for debate. I think we should as it was a direct consequence of the Battle of the Trench. Infact, the prophet fought the Qurayza in the same armor he had worn while at the trench. The Muslim army didn't even rest in between the two.Bless sins (talk) 22:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- Currently, the article has it the other way, restricting itself to the Battle of the Trench proper, in which the BQ were not actively involved. Hence they do not belong in the template. Str1977 (talk) 07:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- The BQ incident should be mentioned in short, there is a comprehensive article on this in existence. Whether the BQ should be included in the template (figures, place) is another question. I tend to think they shouldn't. Str1977 (talk) 18:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
- Actually the New Encyclopedia does mention the Qurayza at the end. The thing is that I haven't seen any author talk of the "the battle of Qurayzah". If you want we could remove the Qurayza casualties from the template; however, their strength remains as during the battle Muhammad had to sent a contingent of 200-300 men to protect Medina from the Qurayza.Bless sins (talk) 21:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comments - some MOS and referencing issues:
- Please use en dashes for pages ranges instead of hyphens in references. For example Muir, p. 272-274 -> Muir p. 272–274 (place
–between the two page numbers).- Done
- Current note no. 4 - lacks any reference information, page number, etc.
- The title of the book doesn't need to be mentioned in every note, so please format them (for example, Watt, Muhammad: Prophet and statesman, p. 96. -> Watt 1961, p. 96).
- Done
- Same for current ref numbers 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 17, 20, 21, 30.
- Done
- Current ref. number 19 needs a page number and the book should be added with all the appropiate information in the references section.
- Current ref. number 25 - These included weapons, household goods, utensils, camels and cattle. The stored wine was spilled. See Kister, p. 94.. I could find no book by Kister in the references section.
- I removed it, duo to lack of any information about it on the web.--Seyyed(t-c) 11:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- Please provide ISBN codes for books in the references section. This can easily be done through Google Books.
- Unfortunately I couldn't find the ISBN of the two Arabic references.--Seyyed(t-c) 07:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- Please link dates in the lead and infobox, as well as throughout the article. For example, 31 March 627 -> March 31 627.
- Done
- Use p. for single page reference notes, and pp. for multiple pages reference notes or page ranges. For example, p. 36, 37 -> pp. 36, 37.
- Done
- Please use en dashes for pages ranges instead of hyphens in references. For example Muir, p. 272-274 -> Muir p. 272–274 (place
- Otherwise the article looks good. After this issues will be fixed, I will probably support it. --Eurocopter (talk) 09:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comments
- The article is in overall need of a copyedit (primarily for flow). I can do bits of this if you wish. My suggestion would be to request a coypedit at the Logistics Department.
- Given the size of the article, I think the lead warrants some expansion.
- "The Confederates" section reads quite choppy, as there are about a half-dozen small paragraphs of very short length. Would it be possible to combine these somehow?
That's all I have time for now. I'll take a look tomorrow (after I get some sleep). Cam (Chat) 07:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- To explain my edits:
- References should be given in an accesible manner. Every first reference of a book or article should give the author and the book title, every further reference only the author and page numbers. If one author has more than one book, titles should be given each time. Years are not needed and are no proper way of making references accessible - it has been a common problem that some editor adds a "author (year)" without caring about whether anyone knows what that book is. Also, various book have appeared in different editions in different years. Readers can more easily work with titles.
- Of course, each and every book used in the notes should also appear in the literature section.
- Authors should be named by their real name and link directly to their article. To see "Watt, Montgomery" (or Even "Watt, M Montgomery") pop up again is saddening. Str1977 (talk) 06:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- I followed Eurocopter's suggestions but you reverted them.[5]--Seyyed(t-c) 11:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- I did not revert anything. I made my edits without any reference to any previous version. I explained them above. Please reply to that, if you will. Str1977 (talk) 17:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- These are not my proposals and I ask Eurocopter to discuss with you.--Seyyed(t-c) 02:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
- Eurocopter's proposal:
- Use p. for single page reference notes, and pp. for multiple pages reference notes or page ranges. For example, p. 36, 37 -> pp. 36, 37.
- Please use en dashes for pages ranges instead of hyphens in references. For example Muir, p. 272-274 -> Muir p. 272–274 (place
–between the two page numbers). - Please use en dashes for pages ranges instead of hyphens in references. For example Muir, p. 272-274 -> Muir p. 272–274 (place – between the two page numbers).--Seyyed(t-c) 02:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
- I never said "your proposals".
- Using "pp." is unnecessary and dated. Everyone sees that there is more than one page by the numbers given. Additionally, it should not be "p. 36. 37." but "p. 36-37" or "p. 36f."
- I don't care either way about the dashes if the one inserting the formatted dashed does so consistently. But it is much easier to include the normal hyphens and I actually never saw the advantage of using formatted dashes. But as I said, I don't care either way. Str1977 (talk) 06:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
- Str1977 (talk) 06:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
- Just have a look over some FAs and see what type of referencing they use. See also WP:DASH. Consider Battle of Albuera as a referencing style model. --Eurocopter (talk) 08:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- Though I prefer my proposal, the Albuera style would work (as would a simple Author-year style) if it weren't for the tendency of some editors to simply drop new factlets without any regard for the bibliographical information, i.e. they add something and reference it by "Someone (1977)" even if there is no book by "Someone" from the year 1977 in the literature section, thereby forcing others to clean up the mess. And then 1977 is revealed to be a different edition of a book already included under a different publication date. The book's title is the most essential thing and therefore should be included! Common sense should prevail over rigid models defined somewhere by God-knows-who.
- Ah, and "pp" is really dated and unneccessary. Str1977 (talk) 09:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- Though I prefer my proposal, the Albuera style would work (as would a simple Author-year style) if it weren't for the tendency of some editors to simply drop new factlets without any regard for the bibliographical information, i.e. they add something and reference it by "Someone (1977)" even if there is no book by "Someone" from the year 1977 in the literature section, thereby forcing others to clean up the mess. And then 1977 is revealed to be a different edition of a book already included under a different publication date. The book's title is the most essential thing and therefore should be included! Common sense should prevail over rigid models defined somewhere by God-knows-who.
- Just have a look over some FAs and see what type of referencing they use. See also WP:DASH. Consider Battle of Albuera as a referencing style model. --Eurocopter (talk) 08:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- I did not revert anything. I made my edits without any reference to any previous version. I explained them above. Please reply to that, if you will. Str1977 (talk) 17:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- To explain my edits:
- No, I believe "pp" is still standard whenever "p" is used. A footnote like "p. 272–274" is strictly amateur hour; it should read "pp. 272–74". What's optional, at least in the Chicago Manual of Style and perhaps other systems, is using "p" or "pp" at all when it is understood that the numbers refer to pages.
- But you're right that a citation like "Someone (1977)" is not ideal. There's no strong reason to use an author-date reference in a footnote—that's a confused mixing of citation styles. But that horse has long left the barn. Citations on Wikipedia are thrown together from various parts like Frankenstein's monster. But as long as the needed information is there, people seem to be okay with the monster. —Kevin Myers 13:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Pre work version: 1; B-class version: 2; current version: 3; comparison from pre-work to current version: 4
I believe this article fully meets the criteria and the difference is clear. Also see the comments here. -- Cheers mate! CYCLONICWHIRLWIND talk 20:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I am concerned about the majority reliance of the article of RAAF/Defence Department sources, which are not third party. Secondly, the refs are not formatted in a complete manner, with the publisher details (DoD is written at the bottom of some of them) and "English" needs to be removed because English is the assumed default. The other minor stylistic things is that you appear to have chosen to not wikilink the geographical places, and where you have used a "main" link to subarticles, it is not necessary to link the topic again as the first word of the paragraph. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Done I think... Please let me know if there is more. -- Cheers mate! CYCLONICWHIRLWIND talk 23:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose This article is in much better shape than most RAAF articles, but it's not A-class and still needs a bit of work to get there. My concerns are:
- I'm uncomfortable with the amount of text which has been directly taken from the RAAF's page on ACG, especially as this isn't identified as being direct quotes. This is bad-practice as the text is a) covered by copyright and b) not neutral.
- Which text is that? From what I have read, it is neutral, but I wrote it, so that is of course my opinion. -- Cheers mate! CYCLONICWHIRLWIND talk 23:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Some examples from the RAAF website which have been copied and pasted into the article: Air Combat Group is one of the largest Force Element Groups in the Air Force with 145 aircraft, 163 aircrew and 2000 support personnel based across Australia. It is responsible for all of the Air Force ’s F/A-18 Hornet, F-111 and Hawk squadrons, plus PC-9/A Forward Air Control aircraft. and Air Combat Group maintains a busy training schedule for both air and ground crew on the F/A-18 Hornet, F-111 and Hawk. Recent highlights have been providing support to Operation Acolyte (Melbourne Commonwealth Games 2006) and participation in high-end exercises such as Exercise Pitch Black in Australia and Exercise Red Flag in the United States.. This needs to be re-written and checked against a source other than the Group's website, if possible. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
- The first part has been fixed. -- Cheers mate! CYCLONICWHIRLWIND talk 20:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
- The socond has been fixed as well, and I will try to find another reference for it. -- Cheers mate! CYCLONICWHIRLWIND talk 20:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
- Some examples from the RAAF website which have been copied and pasted into the article: Air Combat Group is one of the largest Force Element Groups in the Air Force with 145 aircraft, 163 aircrew and 2000 support personnel based across Australia. It is responsible for all of the Air Force ’s F/A-18 Hornet, F-111 and Hawk squadrons, plus PC-9/A Forward Air Control aircraft. and Air Combat Group maintains a busy training schedule for both air and ground crew on the F/A-18 Hornet, F-111 and Hawk. Recent highlights have been providing support to Operation Acolyte (Melbourne Commonwealth Games 2006) and participation in high-end exercises such as Exercise Pitch Black in Australia and Exercise Red Flag in the United States.. This needs to be re-written and checked against a source other than the Group's website, if possible. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
- Which text is that? From what I have read, it is neutral, but I wrote it, so that is of course my opinion. -- Cheers mate! CYCLONICWHIRLWIND talk 23:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- "Air Combat Group (ACG) is the group which commands the RAAF's fighter and bomber aircraft" - yes and no. From my understanding, the group is responsible for administering the RAAF's combat aircraft and ensuring that they're combat ready, but they pass from ACG's command when deployed on operations/major exercises. The RAN and RAAF's force element groups do not form part of the command chain for military operations, and commands like Air Command actually 'command' the jets during operations.
- Done
- "In a break with tradition within the RAAF" Why is this a break with tradition? The RAAF has had a very fluid command structure throughout its existence.
- I agree, so Done.
- I agree, so
- The various air bases, towns, squadrons, etc should be linked the first time they're mentioned in the article.
- I believe I have done this, where else should it be done?
- Looks goood now
- I believe I have done this, where else should it be done?
- Why does the 'Operations' section only include the deployment to Deigo Garcia, and not the more significant deployment to participate in the invasion of Iraq or the deployments to protect CHOGM or the Commonwealth Games?
- I am working on this, so it should be done soon.
- It's not correct to say that "it was deployed" to protect CHOGM, as only a squadron (or less) was used for this task. The relevant Defence annual report should say how many aircraft were used.
- Trying to find this.
- The article's sections should be combined - single para sections are much too short.
- Done I think...
- Topics which are linked in the body of the text shouldn't be 'see also's at the top of the section.
- Done
- Why do you say that the wings are "currently headquartered" at various bases? Are there plans to move them? - I believe that these wings have been located at these bases for several decades now.
- Done
- The Forward Air Control Development Unit is a training outfit, and doesn't "strike designated targets" or "conduct reconnaissance", except in emergencies (some FACDU aircraft were apparently prepared to deploy to East Timor in 1999, but would only have been used in a combat zone if things got very desperate). I believe that it's role is train RAAF and Army forward air controllers.
- why "traditional single-seat design"? Double-seat training variants of combat aircraft are nothing new.
- Done
- The Australian F/A-18s are not "carrier-capable" and it should be mentioned that they're currently being upgraded.
- Done
- The impending retirement of the F-111s and introduction of F/A-18Fs also needs to be mentioned.
- Done
- The F-111Cs are not "the "recce" or reconnaissance version of the F-111" - they're the Australian variant of the F-111 bomber. Four F-111Cs were converted to RF-111Cs, but are still capable of serving as bombers.
- Done
- All the F-111Gs have now been retired, and they were only ever used as training aircraft in Australian service. It should be mentioned that No. 6 Squadron is the F-111 operational conversion unit, and not really a combat formation per-se.
- Done
- I agree with Blnguyen's concerns about the lack of third-party references. The Australian National Audit Office released a report on the readiness of ACG's aircraft a couple of years ago which would make a good ref as this is an independant assessment of how well ACG is filling its main role. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'm uncomfortable with the amount of text which has been directly taken from the RAAF's page on ACG, especially as this isn't identified as being direct quotes. This is bad-practice as the text is a) covered by copyright and b) not neutral.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I will fix any comments that you have. Cheers, ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line§ 19:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. Needs an extensive copyedit. Please ask one of the other editors actively involved in civil war articles to copyedit if for you. If you can't find anyone, please leave me a note on my talk page and I'll do it. Cla68 (talk) 00:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose.
Citations need page numbers. None of them have!I'm concerned that this article has put together entirely from web sources when there are so many paper sources available for ACW. Which of the web sources are reliable sources and why? --ROGER DAVIES talk 16:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Done--Finished, added book sources, page numbers. --ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a lineReview Me! 16:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Good :) Now could you please (1) tidy up the multiply-cited stuff using "ref name = " style refs (see Wikipedia:Footnotes for how to); (2) alphabeticise the ref list; (3) Done cite Mr Burke Davis correctly; {4) lose the extra bracket in some cites; and (5) Done add p. or pp as necessary to page numbers? It's not necessary to say (in English) either, that's assumed.
- Can you also please address my reliable sources question? Thanks. --ROGER DAVIES talk 19:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- The NPS Battle summary is reliable for sure. How do you want me to alphabetize the references? ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a lineReview Me! 02:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Done. Finished all except alphabetizing. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a lineReview Me! 03:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- The NPS Battle summary is reliable for sure. How do you want me to alphabetize the references? ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a lineReview Me! 02:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Good :) Now could you please (1) tidy up the multiply-cited stuff using "ref name = " style refs (see Wikipedia:Footnotes for how to); (2) alphabeticise the ref list; (3)
- Observations
- This version is not really what I was anticipating :) There are, for example, no page numbers and it's unnecessary to completely duplicate the citations (notes) and the references. Perhaps use short forms for the cites, including page numbers where appropriate, like this:
- ^a b c d Swain.
- Davis (1959), p 76.
- Davis (1980), pp 17–23.
- (You can also cite "Davis (1959), p 76." as "Davis (1959, 76)." if you think it's neater or clearer.)
- Why do you say (English) after references? This is an English-language encyclopedia, you only need specify the language if it's not in English.
- Please list the references in alphabetical order. It makes it easier for the reader to cross-reference them to the cites.
- Turning now to the web sources (and this is something that will come under scrutiny if you take this the next step, to FAC), what makes you think these are reliable sources?
- "Battle Summary: Appomattox Station". Heritage Preservation Services. Retrieved 2008-05-02.
- What does this add? It is extremely skimpy.
- Williams, Joe (December 22, 2004). "The Final Battles at Appomattox Station and Appomattox Court House, Virginia". National Preservation Society. Retrieved 2008-05-02.
- Why is a general piece on the National Parks Service website a reliable source for a history article in an encyclopedia?
- Howe, Lanny. "Battle Surrender at Appomattox Station". Retrieved 2008-05-04.
- Again, this is scarcely a scholarly work. What are Lanny Howe's credentials?
- "Battle of Appomattox". Civil War Encyclopedia. Retrieved 2008-05-04.
- This is much more detailed than the others but the publisher, Georgia's Historic High Country Travel Association, is basically promoting tourism. Why is it reliable as a source for an encyclopedia?
- Schroeder, Patrick. "The Battles of Appomattox Station and Appomattox Court House". Retrieved 2008-05-04.
- Schroeder seems okay as a source. I'd perhaps cite this as the Bivouac banner.
- Swain, Craig. "Battle of Appomattox Station Marker". Retrieved 2008-05-04.
- I'm wondering what this source adds. Surely you can cite the stuff to other better sources?
- "Battle Of Appomattox "Surrounded" April 8–9, 1865". Bluegrass. Retrieved 2008-05-04.
- As above. Essentially popularist and not about this battle but the Battle of Appomattox Courthouse.
- Fitz, Deborah. "Appomattox Town & Park Eye Forgotten Battle Land". Retrieved 2008-05-04.
- Broken link.
- --ROGER DAVIES talk 04:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- I give up. I just can't seem to source it correctly. If anyone else cand do it, please do.ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a lineReview Me! 16:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- I've fixed the broken ref, and also converted the long form cites into short form ones.
- This review is due to be closed today but under the new rules the nominator can ask for an extension of up to three days to fix ongoing issues. Would this help? --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Battle of Marion (1)
[edit]I've been working on this article for quite a while, and I think that it could become an A-class article. Any comments or suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Redmarkviolinist Drop me a line 21:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment(s)
- You mention that General Stoneman had his plan approved by his supior officers, but I do not see those officers mentioned anywhere in the article.
- Consider placing your inline citations after your punctuation marks rather than before them, IM(H)O this tends to make articles look better.
- Done - I actually used an automated script to correct them, and I haven't checked it, but I have faith in the script. ;) Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 01:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Do we have articles here for any of the officers or forces in the "preperations" section?
- In the section "preperations" you make mention of 3:00 AM. I assume that was the local time, but it would probably be a good idea to put such a mention in the article.
- Otherwise, it looks good. Well done! TomStar81 (Talk) 23:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. One of my favorite battles. I will try and get you an Order of Battle to use for the article. However, I think the citations need to be properly formatted before I can support for A-class. Shouldn't take that long. MrPrada (talk) 02:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. Really needs a copyedit for tone. You might also find that a more varied layout of images (perhaps some on the left?) adds to the visual appeal of the article. I would also see if a little more could be squeezed out of the lead. Carom (talk) 13:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. I would also suggest adding the next-level above campaignbox that includes Stoneman's Raid campaign as one of its subcampaigs, if there is one. Cla68 (talk) 06:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comments. The graphics and such are nice, and the article has a good start with appropriate format. But there are still many issues:
- The article appears to have been created from primarily CSA sources. Stoneman's O.R. report and other Union or neutral sources should be examined and cited where appropriate.
- Done Redmarkviolinist Drop me a line 15:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC) One of my main sources was primarily Union, but there are more.
- This is not by any means "done"! The tone of the article is POV'ish and needs a rewrite that matches reality more closely. While I don't believe the POV is intentional, it is one sided in its present form. I've refrained from tagging it as such so far, but it is beginning to appear necessary. Red Harvest (talk) 16:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Stoneman's claimed accomplishments as result of the raid should probably be given some weight. Marvel states that the lead mines weren't back in service for six months. The salt operations were out of commission for at least a month and the railroads, depots, and locomotives of the region were destroyed so that salt couldn't be transported even if it could be made.
- The sources that claim many Union charges and great carnage in their repulse fail to explain the low casualties. The intensity clearly wasn't there for such a long battle. Makes for a great romantic battle story, but the butcher's bill doesn't support it.
- I'm also wary of the article's claim that the expressed primary motive for the raid was the massacre. The leadmines, iron works, and saltworks and associated rail transportation were all primary infrastructure targets. Some sort of primary sources/quotations should be added to support the assertion.
- Since the Saltville battles are only a stub and there is no campaign article, the Marion article is serving for the whole raid. As such the events leading to the battle probably require more description to explain the paths coherently. (I've cleaned up many of the incorrect location listings already.)
- The arrow on the map box does not represent the direction of the raid. Stoneman left from Knoxville, not West Virginia.
- Done Redmarkviolinist Drop me a line 16:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Better, but the arrow is now coming from Arkansas and entering Kentucky, so it will need another revision. Red Harvest (talk) 19:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Troop counts of combatants at key points should be mentioned. Red Harvest (talk) 22:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- The article appears to have been created from primarily CSA sources. Stoneman's O.R. report and other Union or neutral sources should be examined and cited where appropriate.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Even if it's a quite short article, I think it could meet the requirements in my opinion. However, suggestions and comments would be welcome. --Eurocopter (talk) 16:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Looks decent, with a few potential tweaks. If only for visual appeal, it should not be one block of text. I'd end the introduction with "For Wallachia, the victory meant the continual survival of the young state". Logically, then, the first point is the background of alliances, enmities, events, etc. before the battle. "In 1324, Wallachia was a vassal of Hungary, and Robert referred to Basarab as "our Transalpine Voivode."[3] That might start with "The war started with encouragement from the Voivode of Transylvania[5] and a certain Dionisie, who later bore the title Ban of Severin.[3] In 1330, Robert captured the Wallachian citadel of Severin and handled it to the Transylvanian Voivode."
- The location needs to move down, perhaps to a heading Preliminaries and Battle.[5] Basarab sent envoys that asked for the hostilities to cease, and in return offered to pay 7,000 marks in silver, submit the fortress of Severin to Robert, and send his own son as hostage.[5] According to the Viennese Illuminated Chronicle, a contemporary account, Robert would have said about Basarab: He is the shepherd of my sheep, and I will take him out of his mountains, dragging him off his beard. Another account writes that Robert said that he will drag the Voivode from his cottage, as would any driver his oxen or shepherd his sheep.[5]
- Even a brief Aftermath and significance section would help. You might restate the victory from the introduction. Add, minimally, the last sentence, and perhaps a bit more about the balance of regional power afterwards. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 17:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Length is not generally a problem, but as Howard points out, it should still really be divided into sections - he suggests "Background," "Battle" and "Aftermath," and that seems logical to me. The image that currently appears at the top left corner should probably be moved, as well. Carom (talk) 17:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Done, have a look. --Eurocopter (talk) 17:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Would it be possible to extend the lead somewhat? Carom (talk) 18:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- I expanded it a bit and think it covers now all the sections. Would there be anything else? --Eurocopter (talk) 20:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: Remove the images of the commanders from the infobox. Wikify the use of bold text. Give the sources and dates of all images in their descriptions. Is this battle just such a short affair without any scholars researching the battle dispositions? And the numbers should be based on a historians work(with a reference!) since 30,000 Medieval soldiers being all killed by 10,000 shepherds without military training sounds like a fairytale. Wandalstouring (talk) 19:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Done, have a look. --Eurocopter (talk) 15:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- I suggest you read carefully the article before commenting. Of those 10,000 wallachian warriors, about 70-80% were sheperds. Anyway, they succeded because they set up an ambush in which those "medieval soldiers" became an easy target, as the Wallachians were throwing with stones and trees from the top of the mountains over them. The strategy of this battle is very similar to the one used by Henry V in the Battle of Agincourt, where the English army numbering only 5,900 men came victorious over a 30,000 men French Army. While the French lost in combat about 10,000 men, English casualties numbered only 112. So I wouldn't call Battle of Posada a "fairy tale", since we have other famous similar battles, fought in almost exactly the same way. Regarding the other points, i'll try to fix them as soon as possible. --Eurocopter (talk) 19:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Agincourt was against trained soldiers(widely regarded as the elite of medieval archers, plus the infantry fought in a morast that hindered movement of the heavier armed French troops and thus allowed archers and billmen to kill them with swift attacks), not a levy of untrained shepherds and peasants (these were also unlikely to attack with swords, a weapon that does require a lot of training). Where is the source about how many were not professional soldiers and what were the arms of these professionals? I can read that it was an ambush, but still killing 30,000 with 10,000 is rather difficult. If there is a large contingent of archers(light infantry can be used with minimal training in formations as long as they have plenty of experience in aiming with their distance weapon) it could work(for example shepherds using the bow and shooting from above, that gives the arrow enough power to penetrate a gambeson), but that is the only weapon in medieval warfare that could do this. So all in all, it would be desireable if you found more sources on how exactly the troops were composed. Wandalstouring (talk) 16:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- I suggest you read carefully the article before commenting. Of those 10,000 wallachian warriors, about 70-80% were sheperds. Anyway, they succeded because they set up an ambush in which those "medieval soldiers" became an easy target, as the Wallachians were throwing with stones and trees from the top of the mountains over them. The strategy of this battle is very similar to the one used by Henry V in the Battle of Agincourt, where the English army numbering only 5,900 men came victorious over a 30,000 men French Army. While the French lost in combat about 10,000 men, English casualties numbered only 112. So I wouldn't call Battle of Posada a "fairy tale", since we have other famous similar battles, fought in almost exactly the same way. Regarding the other points, i'll try to fix them as soon as possible. --Eurocopter (talk) 19:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Again, read the article carefully before making such comments. Basarab's army was not formed of a "levy of untrained shepherds". As stated in the article, Basarab's army numbered less than 10,000 men and comprised of cavalry, pedestrian archers and some locally recruited peasants and shepherds. And, the source is mentioned. --Eurocopter (talk) 17:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- I can READ. You just mentioned that 70-80%("about 70-80% were sheperds") of his force were the levy. Where is THAT sourced? Wandalstouring (talk) 18:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- And to make this article finally achieve A class you should try to find out how the Hungarian army was composed. I know that they were composed of lots of crossbow archers and heavy cavalry when facing the Mongols, but I don't know how it was at Posada. Furthermore the levy requires some more information whether in Wallachia the peasants and shepherds were allowed to hunt and use weapons(in many medieval European states these were restricted). Another point is the amarment of the Wallachian archers. On the contemporary images it looks like they wield recurve bows. Is that correct? A big question is how the entrapping was achieved. I think that small contingents of heavily armed warriors were needed to trap the Hungarians in the pass, but that's only guesswork. Wandalstouring (talk) 18:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- I was wrong when I stated that the Wallachian army was composed of 70% shepherds. Djuvara says the Hungarian army is actually the main Hungarian army, excepting a contingent which was sent in Poland. I don't know if this should be mentioned in the article or not. The shepherds were recruited by Basarab on his way to the location of the battle, so were automatically allowed to carry weapons. However, in the XIV century Wallachia was a poor organized young state, so of course anyone was allowed to hunt and use weapons. Regarding the other details, i'll have a look over the sources, but I doubt such fine details are available. --Eurocopter (talk) 18:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Sounds fine.
- 1.It would greatly benefit the article if you found out how many professional soldiers Basarab I had. I'm sure there are some estimates since we do know how much money he was willing to offer. A short note that Wallachian peasants were allowed to carry arms and that the country wasn't very organized would help to give the reader a better picture of the situation.
- 2. How did this defeat affect Hungary. Did the army composition or total number of troops change afterwards(and what was it during the battle)? Did they become more peaceful towards their neighbours? Did the king rule without much opposition because many nobles were dead? Was the king the only one to make good his escape?
- 3. What kind of weapons did the Wallachians wield(bows, polearms, long knifes, some swords)? They are depicted with recurve bows. Were these small or large recurve bows(could the same bows be used on horseback or not?Wandalstouring (talk) 09:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- 1.The only information we have is already mentioned in the article, "Basarab's army was formed of pedestrian archers, cavalry and some locally recruited peasants and shepherds". Sincerelly, a note that Wallachian peasants were allowed to carry weapons would be absurd in our case and not at all appropiate. We already mentioned in the article that Wallachia was a young country, and however, details about XIV century Wallachia can be found in the Wallachia main article.
- 2.Of course this battle didn't represent such a big disaster for Hungary, which was one of the most powerfull kingdoms in Europe at that time. Of course the Romanian source which I cited (Djuvara) doesn't give many details regarding the aftermath of the Hungarian side. Also I see no connection of King's rule after the battle with this article, as eventual internal problems resulting from this battle would have nothing to do with this article (as it would not necessary represent the aftermath).
- 3.Information available states that Wallachian pedestrian used bows. Actually, there was some controversies that the Wallachian warriors would have used lances, but this was later denied by Djuvara stating that this was imposible because the lance can be used only once, in close combat. --Eurocopter (talk) 16:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- 3. That a lance can only be used once in close combat is new to me. It depends on where the enemy is hit(ribcage is the area were lances and other pointy weapons are sometimes trapped).
- 1,2&3. OK, your source dosn't mention all that. So try to get more sources, what you present is rather meagre regarding research.Wandalstouring (talk) 15:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- You misunderstood me. We don't have that information because it doesn't exist! Djuvara's work gathers all possible available sources. We don't even know the location of the battle, how the heck can we know such fine details as if the bows were recurve small or large? However, seems that you don't want this article to be promoted, as you keep asking silly questions. I will stop wasting my time, so just tell me, which WP:FACR it doesn't meet?--Eurocopter (talk) 16:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Stop bickering. If this article was good someone would already have given support for its promotion. The issue with the bows is just minor, but good research could provide the answer. I don't think it is fit for A-class, but I try to help you. However, if researching the issue is too difficult, I can try that too, but this will take me some time because I have to finish other wikiwork. Wandalstouring (talk) 16:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Some more sources:
- Dr. Constantin Rezachevici, Lupta lui Basarab I cu Carol Robert în Banatul de Severin..., în „Magazin istoric”, nr. 4 (289) din aprilie 1991, pp. 51 - 54.
- Florin-Nicu Smărăndescu, ... sau pe Valea Prahovei?, în „Magazin istoric”, nr. 4 (289) din aprilie 1991, pp. 55 - 56.
- I think they probably discuss the location, but could contain useful info.
- Bertényi Iván: Magyarország az Anjouk korában, Gondolat – 1987, ISBN 9633817761 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum
- Képes Krónika (Hasonmás kiadás), Helikon – 1987
- I'm sure there are more recent Hungarian works.
- The cronica lui Johann de Thurocz does also contain a section on the battle. Wandalstouring (talk) 16:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- In 1324 there was an encounter between Basarab and Charles in which the Wallachian forces were defeated. That should be part of the background because it was also a dispute centered around Severin.
- In 1337 Charles was in alliance with Poland against the Holy Roman Empire and Habsburg. After such a crushing defeat it is worth mentioning.Wandalstouring (talk) 16:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Under the Hungarian successor the struggle continued, plus Wallachia was still officially under the Hungarian suzeranity. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- You misunderstood me. We don't have that information because it doesn't exist! Djuvara's work gathers all possible available sources. We don't even know the location of the battle, how the heck can we know such fine details as if the bows were recurve small or large? However, seems that you don't want this article to be promoted, as you keep asking silly questions. I will stop wasting my time, so just tell me, which WP:FACR it doesn't meet?--Eurocopter (talk) 16:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Rezachevici is cited 9 times in Djuvara's book, and Johann de Thurocz also. Unfortunately, i'm unable to speak hungarian. However, Djuvara also gathered the most important Hungarian sources and chronicals. --Eurocopter (talk) 16:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Try for example to quote directly what the primary sources say (look at Jean d'Arc for example). The Romanian wiki is full of quotes, perhaps there is something that can be used. Also the battles before and after this event should be mentioned as suggested and the legal status against the de facto status of Wallachia. I found a source on the arms in Eastern Europe during this time, however, it is not available in a library on the continent, so it will take some time to add info. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Objection and a to do list:
- Background: Mention Wallachian defeat in 1324 and the resulting suzeranity of Hungaria. Plus that this conflict was already about Severin.
- Battle: The narrative of the battle doesn't make sense. How can Wallachian warriors attack with swords when they are above the Hungarians, shooting arrows and throwing stones? Please check your sources whether there is any mention of one or two small contingents blocking the escape routes. Theory of the attack with lances should be briefly discussed(how did it originate and why is it dismissed).
The cronica lui Johann de Thurocz depicts a cavalry battle. Please check this source whether there is a description of cavalry encounters(entrace and exit?).
- Aftermath: Mention that Hungaria is in 1337 again at war, this time with the Holy Roman Empire, thus has rebuilt its army(short note about the immense financial power possible). Mention the de facto independence and the de jure suzeranity of the Hungarian king until the diplomatic dispute is solved (1340?).
Mention that under Charles's (died 1342) successor the military conflict with the Hungarian king would continue.
- Location of the battle: Create new section after the aftermath and mention the four theories where the battle possibly took place.
Check these sources for information and check the literature your sources used:
- Dr. Constantin Rezachevici, Lupta lui Basarab I cu Carol Robert în Banatul de Severin..., în „Magazin istoric”, nr. 4 (289) din aprilie 1991, pp. 51 - 54.
- Florin-Nicu Smărăndescu, ... sau pe Valea Prahovei?, în „Magazin istoric”, nr. 4 (289) din aprilie 1991, pp. 55 - 56.
- Armament: I found a source on the topic and thus possibly a section can be provided, however, a minor issue.
- Legal status of the peasants and shepherds: Whether or not they were allowed to carry arms has nothing to do how young a nation is. If they were allowed to have arms in contrast to other European subjects, than provide this with a source.
- Unfortunately no such source exist. Since they were fighting, of course they could carry arms. Just tell me a XIV century state, in which the use of arms was prohibited (sourced).
- Citations: provide some appropriate citations from the primary sources (example: Jean d'Arc).
If you have done all demanded in this to do list (except the armament) then I have no more objections against promoting it to A class.Wandalstouring (talk) 09:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Sincerelly, we shouldn't mention those four theories regarding the location of the battle because at least two of them are completely wrong (Djuvara concluded that the locations of Prahova and Argeş should be excluded).--Eurocopter (talk) 16:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree. As long as these theories exists we have to mention them, especially since other historians made them. If your source proves it wrong, we have to show how this sources proves the mistake. Wandalstouring (talk) 16:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- I can't agree with this, introducing false information in the article may disinform. So, i'd rather let this article fail this review rather than continue with this false. Just think, why would an army coming from Visegrád (going to Curtea de Argeş) choose a 600km-longer route through Valea Prahovei? Let's be serious.. --Eurocopter (talk) 16:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Did a historian create this theory? Yes or no? Wandalstouring (talk) 17:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- I suggest we include in this article all possible errors and misinformations made by historians through the time. --Eurocopter (talk) 17:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Did a historian create this theory? Yes or no? Wandalstouring (talk) 17:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. I assume that the source for Djuvara, Neagu. is actually Thocomerius - Negru Voda. Un voivod de origine cumana la inceputurile Tarii Romanesti (Bucharest: Humanitas. ISBN 978-973-50-1731-6) as this doesn't appear to be available in English. As this article is heavily reliant on this source, can you please make sure it complies with WP:RSUE? --ROGER DAVIES talk 20:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sure it complies with WP:RSUE, as Djuvara is widely regarded as one of the best Romanian contemporany historians. --Eurocopter (talk) 21:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hmmm. That's not the point as you'd see if you read the link :) It's about providing original text and translations for key material. This is easy enough to do using a second set of footnotes. This isn't a whim on my part by the way, it's policy. --ROGER DAVIES talk 21:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Done, have a look. --Eurocopter (talk) 15:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- The policy is impossible to obey because there are no English sources available. I think it is OK. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- How is it impossible to obey? WP:RSUE says to use English-language sources, if available, in preference to foreign language ones and, if using foreign language sources, to cite the original foreign language text for bits likely to be challenged. That seems very doable to me, and I see Eurocopter tigre has in fact done it. --ROGER DAVIES talk 10:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- He is quoting 24 pages and only a fraction of the text is given here. Wandalstouring (talk) 11:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- I see what you mean ... that's always the case with cites though, trying to provide pointers for controversial stuff. It's a very hit and miss business, no matter what language :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 11:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- He is quoting 24 pages and only a fraction of the text is given here. Wandalstouring (talk) 11:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- How is it impossible to obey? WP:RSUE says to use English-language sources, if available, in preference to foreign language ones and, if using foreign language sources, to cite the original foreign language text for bits likely to be challenged. That seems very doable to me, and I see Eurocopter tigre has in fact done it. --ROGER DAVIES talk 10:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- The policy is impossible to obey because there are no English sources available. I think it is OK. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. On the infobox title it says Slaughter of Posada when the article's name is Battle of Posada, it would be good if you changed it. Also in the lead it says Carol Robert. Does this refer to Charles Robert and if so it would be good if you could change it to keep consistancy. Kyriakos (talk) 04:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.