Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Siege of Vyborg (1710)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Promoted by The ed17 03:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC) [1][reply]

Siege of Vyborg (1710)

[edit]
Nominator(s): User:Interchange88 (talk)

This article has undergone a successful GA-class article assessment, and I think it's ready to be an A-class article. Here are the criteria one by one:

  • A1. The article is consistently referenced with an appropriate citation style, and all claims are verifiable against reputable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations as appropriate.
I believe this criterion is met. I personally wrote virtually the entire article and used only sources that I believed were reliable, and when there was doubt I stated that "(source) claims that ..." to distinguish the line between what Wikipedia considers true and what that source says is true.
  • A2. The article is comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and focused on the main topic; it neglects no major facts or details, presents views fairly and without bias, and does not go into unnecessary detail.
This article is virtually as in-depth as it will ever be. I have scoured every possible source that I have had access to, and I'm pretty sure that this article is now the largest collection of information about the Siege of Vyborg that there is today. I would have to admit that me being Russian and having access to Russian sources but not Swedish ones, I may present this from a Russian point of view, but I have tried to make it as unbiased as possible and there is nothing obvious. I guess this is where independent reviewers come in. As for unnecessary detail, there really is not much information out there about this topic anyway, so that really isn't a concern.
  • A3. The article has an appropriate structure of hierarchical headings, including a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections, and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents.
This is an easy one. I think there's an acceptable lead section and I am pretty sure that the headings are done correctly.
  • A4. The article is written in concise and articulate English; its prose is clear, is in line with style guidelines, and does not require substantial copy-editing to be fully MoS-compliant.
This is also pretty easy. For this article, I had to translate some sources from Russian to English, so there may be some awkward syntax somewhere, but that is easy to resolve.
  • A5. The article contains supporting visual materials, such as images or diagrams with succinct captions, and other media, where appropriate.
All the images here are either my own work or public domain, so no copyright issues. I think there is a sensible mix of text and images, and it looks comparable to other A-class articles.

If you are the reviewer, please let me know what you think. I am ready to fix/improve this article in order to get it to A-class status. --Interchange88 ☢ 12:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

I can't really comment on the content, sorry, so I have focused mainly on technical issues to get this review started:

    • ext links all work (no action required);checkY
    • the Earwig copyright violation detector reports no copyright issues (no action required);checkY
    • according to the tools, there are a few disambig links that should be fixed if possible: [2]; Done
    • images lack alt text, you might consider adding it in but it is not a A-class requirement (suggestion only); Not sure
    • "File:Siege of Vyborg 1710.png" might need the description, source and author information translated (this might be an issue at FA);  Done
    • "File:Vyborg.gif" probably needs a date of creation in the Summary section, it might also need some information about what sources were consulted when creating the map (I'm not sure about this, though);  Done
    • in the lead there is a typo: "The Seige of Vyborg took place in" (should be "Siege"); Done
    • in the lead, "general-admiral Fyodor Apraksin marched". Shouldn't this be: "General-Admiral Fyodor Apraksin marched", per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Military terms;  Done
    • in the Number of artillery section, there is a sentence fragment here: "In most sources.";  Done
    • the citations should be position outside (after) punctuation per WP:PAIC. For instance, in the lead: "waited in vain for Finnish assistance[1]," should be "waited in vain for Finnish assistance,[1]" (there are many examples of this in the article); Done
    • there is some inconsistency in your presentation of dates. For instance consider "March 15" and then "16 March". The date format should be consistent, although either way (Month Day, Year or Day Month Year) is fine;  Done
    • "only set around 9 PM" per WP:MOSTIME this should probably be presented as "9:00 pm" (with a non breaking space in front of "pm");  Done
    • in the References some of the web links are bare urls. For A-class these really should be formatted, either with {{cite web}} or some other way of your choice; Done
    • in the References at Reference # 11 you have "Vasilyev, M.V., Op. cit. p. 29", but this appears to be on first use of the citation. What are the full details of the source?  Done

AustralianRupert (talk) 04:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed it. --Interchange88 ☢ 21:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that all of the technical issues have been addressed. Hopefully, someone may review the content of the article. --Interchange88 ☢ 21:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi, good work so far. I've had another quick look at the article and have a couple more suggestions:
    • I've placed "citation needed" tags where I feel they are needed. If you could replace them with citations, I think that would improve the article;
      • the issue of the needed citations is the only point remaining from my perspective. If these could be dealt with, I would be happy to support this article for promotion to A-Class. Please note, however, that as this review has now been open longer than 28 days, it is due to be closed whenever an uninvolved co-ordinator finds the time. It seems to me that you may have addressed most of the concerns raised by other reviewers, so you might like to see if they would be happy to take another quick look at the article to see if they also think that it is up to scratch (to be successful, the review needs a minimum of three clear "supports" without offsetting "opposes"). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • the References should probably be sorted alphabetically by author's surname. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC) Done[reply]
    • if possible ISBN or OCLC numbers should be added for the References. These can sometimes be found at Worldcat. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments leaning to oppose at this time

[edit]
  • This is a fair effort as far as telling the story goes but I'm a little surprised that it got though GA with its prose and commentary issues. I've fixed the most obvious things but a further copyedit may be needed.
I think you can take care of that (or someone else) because I find it difficult to scrutinize my own writing. As I have mentioned previously, because a lot of this content was translated from Russian and the Russian language has a very different syntax, there are some very awkward phrases or sentences. Hopefully this can be fixed. --Interchange88 ☢ 12:51, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seems to be some inconsistency between the naming/formatting of sources as they appear in the body and as they appear in citations -- I don't have the time to correct these but the names should be the same, and book titles should be italicised while articles should be in double quotes.  Done
    • Not quite. One example (there may be others, pls check again) is "Peter the Great's Magazine", also referred to in the main body as Peter the Great's Magazine (no quote marks) and in the References section as... what? Is it Journal or daily account of the blessed and eternally worthy memory of the Sovereign Emperor Peter the Great from 1698 to the Treaty of Nystad? I can only assume and I shouldn't have to do that. First off, the formatting must be the same each time you use the title in the main body. Secondly, it should clearly relate to the title in the Notes and References sections. If Peter the Great's Magazine and the Journal are one in the same, you could call it Peter the Great's Journal in the main body, for instance. "Report on the capture of Vyborg", "The Life and Affairs of the Great Sovereign", and "The Chronicles of the Vyborg Fortress," also need to be checked that they match the titles in your referencing section and also that the formatting (quote marks or italics) is appropriate for each. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further to sources, it would improve things considerably if you listed all your book and journal references once in their own References section, and cited them in a Notes section using say Harvard referencing.
Please explain what you mean by "once in their own References section, and cited them in a Notes section." I'm not sure what you mean by that.--Interchange88 ☢ 12:51, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is taking me quite some time to do, so do not think I am ignoring the other issues. I will get to them in time. --Interchange88 ☢ 19:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dates are inconsistent; sometimes d-m-y style and sometimes m-d-y -- either is acceptable here but it needs to be consistent.  Done
  • A lot of overlinking; Peter the Great or variations thereof must've been done half a dozen times. It's acceptable to treat the lead section as self-contained regarding links but in the main body of an article this size, it should be enough to link on first use only. I fixed examples where I found them but the article really needs inspection from top to bottom for this alone.  Done
Except for the lead section, there is only one link per topic unless the topic was first mentioned in the very beginning and later only mentioned toward the end. --Interchange88 ☢ 13:13, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citations missing; examples include second-last paragraphs of last two subsections -- every paragraph must at least end in a citation that covers the preceding material.  Done
  • I can't really comment on content/accuracy as it's not my area of expertise, however overall detail and structure seem reasonable. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Withdrawn lean to opposition as most of my points have been addressed one way or another, but not ready to support until the one I just commented on above is addressed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Magicpiano

[edit]
  • Sentences shouldn't begin with numerals (in the lead).  Done
  • There are no maps that place Vyborg and St. Petersburg in relationship to each other, or showing Vyborg in context of the theater of war.  Done
  • Please say a little more about Vyborg's historic strategic importance. It is also probably worth mentioning that St. Petersburg was sited on recently-conquered territory. If Peter placed it as a direct threat to Sweden and Vyborg, this should also be mentioned. (I don't know this history, so Peter's reasons for St. Petersburg's location may not be relevant.)  Done
  • There is no discussion of aftermath. What happened to the Swedish garrison? Where did the Russian forces go next? What was the impact of the event on the course of the war? Did anything interesting happen to the generals on either side because of their conduct? Do any sources discuss civilian casualties or the impact on the town of Russian occupation? What was Vyborg's history afterward?  Done
  • File:Vyborg 1710 medal.jpg lacks provenance of the photograph/engraving. (The coin was struck in 1710, when was the photograph made? See commons:Commons:Derivative works on images of 3d objects.)

The lack of aftermath in particular is serious, and leads me to oppose promotion. Magic♪piano 14:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The aftermath that has been added adequately addresses that concern, so I withdraw my opposition on that basis. I still think the article needs a theater map, but that's not enough to oppose. If a map like File:Great Northern War Part2.png is added, I can support. Magic♪piano 16:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a theater map, and (as you have noticed) an Aftermath section. Thanks for your input! --Interchange88 ☢ 18:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved some of the images around because they weren't well distributed; feel free to adjust. Support. Magic♪piano 13:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Hchc2009

[edit]

I have a lot of sympathy with the problem of translating from Russian into English (lots...!), but I'd lean to oppose at this time. I went through the Background section and noted some of the issues I picked up on, which were:

Background:

  • "The selection of the command staff destined for the siege of Vyborg led to some surprises." - why? Or do you mean "...the siege of Vyborg was surprising."?  Done
I clarified it a bit, mostly by placing a semicolon. --Interchange88 ☢ 19:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "his assistants" - this felt a strange term for a military appointment. "deputies"?  Done
I changed it to "subordinates" --Interchange88 ☢ 19:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the main fort at Vyborg consisted of five frontal bastions named Holtz, Neuport, Klein-Platform, Wasserport and Eleonora, connected by a stone wall. The other part of the fort, connected to the main section, had three bastions named Valport, Panzerlachs, and Evrop. In front of the connection between the last two bastions, there was a ravelin and two caponiers, and in front of the connection between the Evron and Eleonora bastions there was another ravelin. Both ravelins were, apparently, earthen, but inside the main fortification, all structures were stone. Most of the structures in the secondary fort were wooden, with the exception of the stone guard tower, named the Petersburg tower." - I'm really sorry, but in the absence of the diagram I simply couldn't visualise this at all as text. Perhaps if you included some north-south-east-west indicators as well? Or made reference to the shape of the river and the city? I couldn't see the Evron bastion on the map by the way - I was wondering if this was a mispelling of the Evrop one.  Done
I tried to clear it up as much as I could. --Interchange88 ☢ 19:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1702, however, some repairs completed" - "were completed"?  Done
  • "B. Adamovich and A. I. Dubravin put the number at 4000" - worth explaining if there were contemporaries, or modern historians.  Done
  • "as named the commander of the infantry division at Vyborg" - is this the same as the infantry garrison, or different?  Done
  • "After the bombardment, Russian forces retreated back to Saint Petersburg after commanders realized that a siege cannot be carried out without naval support and larger cannon." - after they realised that "the siege could not be carried out"?
  • "Part I. Saint Petersburg, 1770 (Peter the Great's Journal). p. 150.</ref> " - formatting  Done

Glancing through it, the the research looks good, but there's formatting and copy-editing like this to fix throughout the article. Grudgingly oppose at this time. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its looking significantly better - I'm altering to support.Hchc2009 (talk) 18:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kumioko

[edit]

Its looking really good. I didn't have time to read through the whole thing in detail but here are a few things I noticed.

  1. The lede has a couple inline citations. Generally the lede doesn't need these since it just summerizes the article and the infomraiton within the article should be cited.
  2. Can we reduce the huge space between the lede and the rest of the article?
I'm afraid that space is because of the Table of Contents, and there's nothing we can do about it. It's fairly normal to have such a space there. --Interchange88 ☢ 19:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Under Previous attempts. I don't think we should use the Main article template to a red link.  Done
  2. A couple of the references appear to be in Russian (or something like it). I would recommend telling the reader the language of that reference.  Done
  3. Under the references section I do not think we need to identify the specific page. We only need to identify the specific page for the inline citation in the notes section.  Done
  4. In the Notes section. Usually when we refer to one page we say P. but when we refer to multiple pages we say pp.  Done
I am reworking all of the references, the last three concerns should be fixed eventually. --Interchange88 ☢ 19:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this helps a little. --Kumioko (talk) 18:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Comments

[edit]

As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

Thanks for your input; the copy-editing was really needed because a lot of this was translated from Russian, which, as I have said prevoiusly, has a different syntax than English and results in mangled sentences. I will help out with the copy editing, and hopefully that (among other things) will help convince the other commenters here that the article should be promoted. --Interchange88 ☢ 11:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I skimmed past where I stopped, and still can't tell if this is British or American English. Also, a first name is needed for Bergholtz. - Dank (push to talk) 03:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, Bergholtz's first name was not indicated in any of my sources, as in Russian names are traditionally written [first initial] [patronymic initial], [last name] unless the first name is absolutely necessary. As for the dialectal confusion, I see no need to correct this as either way the text is fully and completely understandable, but I will try to convert it fully to American English. --Interchange88 ☢ 19:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Two initials would be a big improvement over just "Bergholtz", and no, the text isn't completely understandable to Americans; few Americans know that "in the event" is British for "in fact". On top of that, I don't make the rules; there's a fairly broad consensus, especially at FAC, to aim to at least make the article look right to readers of a particular nationality. Now that I know which way you're going, I can fix it. Btw, per conversations at WT:MHC, I'm going back to trying to copyedit all rather than half of the A-class articles, while we work out some new procedures; I'm working on it now. - Dank (push to talk) 19:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification. I was about to write that I was having trouble spotting any obvious British English expressions, and I, myself, do use American English and always have. I suppose there are some subtle things that may be changed, and that's probably where editors like you come in; spelling/grammar aren't my specialties. Another thank you for fixing the article for me - that would've taken me ages! --Interchange88 ☢ 19:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Continuing. "In most sources, including "Peter the Great's Magazine", "Report on the capture of Vyborg", "The Life and Affairs of the Great Sovereign", and "The Chronicles of the Vyborg Fortress," it is said ...": It looks like the first three are articles or chapters in a larger work, so the quote marks are right. The last one is cited to The Vyborg Fortress: Chronicles from 1710 to 1872. The quote marks are right if that's the name of a chapter in that work, but if you're referring to the whole work, call it by its real name, in italics. - Dank (push to talk) 02:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and there was not enough ice to bring them the same was the original cannon came.": ? - Dank (push to talk) 03:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)  Done[reply]
I believe that was a single typo - "the same way the original cannon came." I also split the sentence to avoid a run-on. --Interchange88 ☢ 11:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "during the next three days only the mortars fired 100 shots total, per day": I don't know what "only" and "total" mean.  Done

- Dank (push to talk) 11:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Regardless of which source is more accurate,": There's no black-and-white way to talk about the sources, but this feels too much like "meta" information, information about information. Probably "In either case" would be better. (And btw, you may get resistance at FAC about "this source said this, but this source said that" ... there's probably too much of that ... but I'm not the expert on that so I'd rather not say. This is just a note to be thinking about that in case you need to make adjustments.) - Dank (push to talk) 11:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)  Done[reply]
Yes, I changed it to "Either way." The reason I put "this said that," etc. is that I did not want to put information that may only represent an opinion (be it professional) as a fact. Perhaps I may have to change that later, for example saying "Estimates range from 4000 to 6000" instead of "He said 4000, but this other guy said 6000". --Interchange88 ☢ 12:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Chronicles of the Vyborg Fortress mention ...": same here, italicize it and use the official name if it's the work listed in the bibliography. - Dank (push to talk) 18:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)  Done[reply]
  • "There are also records that show a Swedish fleet arriving at Vyborg and being beaten back by the Russians.": Wasn't this mentioned before?
I don't understand; please explain. --Interchange88 ☢ 00:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Vyborg demonstrated its importance as a first-class military base from 1712 to 1714. Thus, in effect, the capture of Vyborg and Karelia served to determine the outcome of the Great Northern War.": Too vague to be useful. Please say something tangible, or omit it. - Dank (push to talk) 18:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)  Done[reply]
  • "The similarity in the number of shots fired between the first and second barrages compared to the disparity in the results (the second one being highly successful), was due to several factors.": I don't understand.  Done
Hopefully now it makes sense. --Interchange88 ☢ 00:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator comments

[edit]

A lot of work has been done to improve this article, and the general consensus appears to favor promotion. There are still improvements that have been suggested but not made, and I will try to get to those. Anyhow, someone has to now officially promote the article, perhaps Australian Rupert, as he was the first to comment. --Interchange88 ☢ 00:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, to clarify the process an ACR needs at least three clear supports (without offsetting opposes) for promotion, also it needs to be closed and the article promoted by an uninvolved project co-ordinator. As I have supported the article's promotion, I am unable to promote it, however, if it achieves the necessary level of support one of the uninvolved co-ords will come and do so when they are free. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for the clarification. It appears we have met the 3 support requirement, so now it's up to an independent editor, as you said. --Interchange88 ☢ 19:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Siege_of_Vyborg_(1710)&oldid=431280525"