Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Vilnius Castle Complex

Vilnius Castle Complex

Article covers one of most important Lithuania's castle history. Article is already GA and undergone further development - was included new section, adjusted formats etc. I would like to send this article to FAC eventually, but I need third side evaluation. Standard peer review did not yield any results yet, so I decided to try luck here. I am seeking suggestions from contributors to evaluate what should be done/improved that this article met expectations of FA. M.K. 20:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PocklingtonDan

"One part of the castle complex, which was built on a hilltop, is known as the Upper Castle. The hill, now known as" would change this to "One part of the castle complex, which was built on a hilltop, is known as the Upper Castle. The hill on which it is built is known as"

Solved, M.K. 21:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The Vilnius Castles were attacked by the Teutonic Order in 1365" Why? No war is mentioned? Why was everyone keen on beating up the residents of Vilnius castle?

Inserted brief explanation, M.K. 21:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

" the Vilnius Castles were besieged for more than three weeks, and one its " - should be "and one of its"

Solved, M.K. 21:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"After a major fire in 1419, Vytautas initiated a reconstruction of the Upper Castle" Hold on, last time this chap was mentioned in the previous para, he was attacking the castle, which it was then stated was not fully taken. How is he now in charge of rebuilding the castle??

Inserted brief explanation, hope it will help, M.K. 21:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Reconstruction of the castle" for each phase of construction of reconstruction I'd mention why they reconstructed it - for show? for defence? if so, from whom?

I added few points about this issue M.K. 13:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"was worth 100,000 ducats" isn't it normal ot parentheses "(X million in today's USD)" or similar

I did not managed to find equivalents of the sum, but I will continue my search. M.K. 13:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure i like the splitting up of the history into the three castle components - ie you read through from 1323 to 1945 for the upper csatle, then suddenly you're back in 1323 again for the lower castle. The sections might inform one another if merged into purely chronological.

I talked about this issue below, bet the main problem could arose, because we can lost consistency of article using chronology, because now we have full part of article about Royal Palace etc., if we divide we will have various parts of it in different places. Second very important point - same structure uses and scholarly works. M.K. 13:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"had two arsenals – the so-called New and Old " - you then detail the new before the old. This reverse chronolgy in this one section is confusing. Suggest put this in chronoligcal order too.

Solved, M.K. 21:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"it attracts thousands of tourists from around the world" - Find a figure to cite, 2000/year is pitiful (our local grocery store gets more visitors than that a year), but 200,000 is noteworthy.

Did not found numbers, so reworded, M.K. 21:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a "history of the upper castle", a "history of the lower castle", but no "history of the crooked castle". I appreciate it was burnt early on but no section for it at all is confusing. Again, don't think splitting up into sections by castle area is a good idea. Would make the entire article chronological.

Cheers PocklingtonDan (talk) 22:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is no crooked castle separate section due to very simple reason, this part of castle was from wood and it was burnt in 1390 and never reconstructed after this date, so we have very little notable info about it. So my question do we have separate section for crooked castle consisted from 5-10 sentences? M.K. 13:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Had another read through and you seem to have addressed most of my concers, well done. If you do get time I would still like it all made into a single chronological timeline, but I undserstand this would involve a lot of effort. Thanks - PocklingtonDan (talk) 06:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to solve remaining issues in upcoming days, but I am not sure about chronological timeline, because the same division, which is in article, is presented and in published scholarly works. M.K. 10:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill Lokshin

I'll largely second PocklingtonDan's comments about the order of presentation; flipping back-and-forth in time is needlessly confusing, I think. The article would be better ordered as a more-or-less continuous narrative of the entire complex, rather than divided by section and building.

Aside from that, a few more incidental points:

The article is fairly short, so a little lengthening wouldn't really hurt. Hence, any reason why Gediminas Tower can't simply be merged into it? I doubt that article will ever grow to a reasonable size, given how narrow the topic is; it may be better off absorbed into a more coherent whole.

I believe that if we merge Gediminas Tower to this article a lot of people will be confused because Gediminas Tower info will be melt in Complex article, while Tower itself is notable and as symbol. M.K. 13:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "See also" section should be eliminated; if something isn't worth linking from the text, it's generally not worth linking at all.

It wouldn`t be a problem to eliminate it, M.K. 21:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're currently revamping (in conjunction with WP:CASTLES) {{Infobox Military Structure}} to work for castles; the major development should be done in a week or so, at which point you should be able to add an infobox to the article.

Added infobox, not sure if it useful, M.K. 21:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should become somewhat more useful in the near future. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 22:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We will look forward to development :) 10:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin 02:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for comments I will try to answer other issues in upcoming days. M.K. 21:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]