Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Radzymin (1920)/archive 1

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.

No consensus to promote at this time Nick-D (talk) 23:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Radzymin (1920)[edit]

Nominator(s): //Halibutt


I expanded the article significantly in October. Following the failure at the B1 criterion, I decided to show it some more love and expanded it even further. It received a completely new citations system, lots of new sources, plenty of images and such. In the end, Adamdaley also helped a lot to improve the prose of the article and point the author to some inconsistencies that needed to be sorted out before the article goes public.

All in all, I'm thinking of nominating it for GA and eventually FA status, but I'd love to hear from military historians first. Is it good enough to receive A-class assessment? I certainly hope so. //Halibutt 20:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On a quick procedural note, GA are considered a lower class than A class, so one would usually go through a GA process before an A-class process. Also, both MILHIST and Poland projects have B-class review systems, which would be a good thing to do before GA. For Poland project, we try to provide feedback on a GA level, assuming that any article that goes through a B-class review will want to go to GA next. Anyway, a quick comment on the Battle of Radzymin and why it would fail a current and quick Poland B-class review: not enough citations. Aim to have each sentence referenced for GA/A, and at least each a paragraph for B-class. Wile I see much of the article referenced well, I also see occasionally entire paragraphs with no reference. Also, split notes from references (current ref 22 is a note). Oh, and: add categories. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 04:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input. I assumed that since the article failed only at B1 previously and it has been corrected already, there's no need to go in small steps.
Feel free to mark any sentences you find in need of a reference with {{fact}} tag. It is indeed helpful. However, all of the article as it is was written with the sources that are already mentioned and I'm afraid finding more sources might be a tad problematic, as the topic is not that popular and there's not so many non-primary sources even in Polish language, let alone English. However, if using the same reference 120 times in an article is not against any rules, then it's fine with me.
As to categories, we forgot to uncomment them :) //Halibutt 19:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My philosophy on references is that all of them should be referenced, unless they talk of something very obvious (WP:BLUE). PS. A similar opinion was expressed here, I believe. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 00:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned below, the problem is what is a no-brainer. Some facts are pretty much obvious to me, but they might not be that obvious to others. Hence the need to mark them as needing a citation. It's not a big deal and it would help me a lot. //Halibutt 14:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comment: Hi, I can see a lot of work has gone into this article, and I commend you for it, but unfortunately IMO it currently does not meet the A-class criteria regarding referencing. Indeed it would not currently pass B class, where the minimum standard is one citation at the end of each paragaph. I would mark the article per your comment above, but to be honest, I think you might find it a little off putting to see so many "citation needed" tags. If you can fix this, I will try to take a more thorough look (apologies for what seems a dive-by review, but I will be very busy offline for the next two weeks). I will try to get back to check your progress, though, after that. Some other things to consider in the meantime are (these are just suggestions): some of the images might be left aligned for variation; the authors' names should probably be sorted by surname first (surname, first name) in the References; per WP:LAYOUT the See also section should be above the Citations; and endashes should be used for page ranges, etc. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. As to surname first idea, I personally don't like it at all. As Wiki is not paper, traditional name indexing by surname makes little sense. Especially that the only way people would be trying to find the surnames from within the article would be by Ctrl+F. Interestingly, more and more paper publications also stick to the more natural name+surname scheme nowadays.
As to citation needed tags, I really see nothing wrong with adding [citation needed] tags where needed. As a person pretty much knowledgeable about the topic, it is natural that I consider many things obvious. In fact more obvious than they are in reality. Hence probably I wouldn't feel the need to, say, source a paragraph about Piłsudski's plans for counter-offensive from the Wieprz River line. This is mentioned in every single book on the war of 1920, so for me it's pretty much a case of "sky is blue" thing. But it might not be as obvious to others. In other words: try me :)
As to other issues, thanks for your ideas, I will try to make use of them. In fact most of the format suggestions have already been fixed (See also section, en dashes). I'm not sure what to do about the images, I like them on one side of the article as it helps the mobile users. If aligning some of them left is a necessity, I'd rather someone with a more standard screen did that. Otherwise they might show up just fine on my screen, but a mess on most screens.
Anyway, be sure to come back to the article once you're less busy :) //Halibutt 13:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, I've added the cite needed tags where I feel that they are needed as per your comment above. If you don't agree, pls simply revert. Regarding the format of surname first, I don't hold matters of personal style against an article at A-class so it doesn't affect my support or otherwise, but to be honest I can't really understand the arguments against it. Using surname first allows readers who want to treat it like paper (or are unable to break the habit) to do so while also allowing those that don't want to (and use CTRL+F to search) to do that. Using a first name followed by surname approach basically ignores those readers who wish to treat it like paper. I'm not sure what benefit that creates as you potentially alienate half your readers. Nevertheless, that is just my opinion. If you can add the extra citations where I've marked, I will come back and review the article against the other aspects of the A-class criteria. Keep up the good work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done :) //Halibutt 02:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestions: further to the above, I've taken a quick look through the article and have the following copy edit suggestions. Feel free to ignore as you see fit:
    • "newly-arrived", "partially-preserved", "badly-needed", "baldy-coordinated": there probably shouldn't be a hyphen after the "ly" adverb (see MOS:HYPHEN);
    • date format, e.g. "August 13th" - I don't think that there should be ordinal suffixes (in the subsection headings);
    • structure: generally looks well structured to me, but I have one suggestion: split the "Aftermath" subsection of the Battle section into its own section with a level 2 heading per WP:MILMOS/C. This is by no means mandatory, but is a structure that has enjoyed considerable success;
    • this sounds a little awkward to me: "A 19th century and early 20th century Russian-built ring of forts, part..." I suggest maybe trying: "A ring of 19th and early 20th century Russian-built forts, part..."
    • in one of the image captions: "Although more than 100.000 people..." (I don't think using the decimal point here is correct. I believe that this is a European style, however, in many English-speaking countries this would not be recognised: "100,000" would be more appropriate in my opinion);
    • "began at 0700 hours, but the 21st" per WP:MOSTIME, this should probably be "07:00 hours" (same with "1900 hours the town", "dispatch at 0100 hours", etc. - please look for other examples);
    • this seems a little awkward: "Commanding officer of the Russian 3rd Army, Vladimir Lazarevich, informed Tukhachevsky..." I suggest adding a definate article, i.e. "The commanding officer of the Russian 3rd Army, Vladimir Lazarevich, informed Tukhachevsky";
    • this doesn't quite sound right to me: "However, the conduct of the Polish forces and their commanders at Radzymin in the early part of the battle have been" (specifically "conduct" doesn't agree with "have"). My suggestion is: "However, the conduct of the Polish forces and their commanders at Radzymin in the early part of the battle has been..." AustralianRupert (talk) 05:20, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1.  Done Hyphens
  2.  Done Dates
  3. Aftermath - not sure. Technically it would be possible to split it onto August 16 and Aftermath sections. However, both would be very short. What do others think?
  4.  Done 19th century forts...
  5.  Done decimal point
  6.  Done time of day
  7.  Done definite article
  8.  Done tense
//Halibutt 03:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All of my concerns have been addressed or responded to, so I've added my support for this article to be promoted to A-class. Good work, Halibutt. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Supportive Comments on sourcing I was canvassed by a fellow editor to take a look at this article for citations. Citation and sourcing quality is what I do. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bibliography
      • It is uncommon, but not wrong, to cite the sections of books that were relevant to the article topic in the bibliography. Similarly it is uncommon, but not wrong, to cite chapters in a work where the work has a single author, and chapters are not authored separately.
      • It is normally considered courteous to provide translations of book titles, "Rok 1920." ==google translate==> "Year 1920." This allows editors like me to understand _why_ and _how_ a book is being used.
      • Did "Godziemba" miss out when they were handing out names?
      • I have real difficulty believing that these sources are reliable for history:
        • Godziemba (2011). "Polskie czołgi pod Warszawą w 1920". niezalezna.pl. Grzegorz Wierzchołowski. Retrieved 2011-10-06. A column in a newspaper?
        • Rocznik Mińsko-Mazowiecki doesn't exist in Ulrich's periodicals directory; there's no indication it is peer reviewed; it seems to be a local year book?
        • Władysław Kolatorski. "Bitwa Warszawska". radzymin.pl. Urząd Miasta Radzymin. The Municipal Council Radzymin isn't a known historical publisher
        • Piotr Kożuchowski (2010). "11 Dywizja Piechoty w bitwie warszawskiej". Zecernia. Retrieved 2011-10-24. This is a blog.
        • (Polish) Janusz Szczepański (2002). "Kontrowersje Wokół Bitwy Warszanskiej 1920 Roku". Mówią Wieki (8): 30–38. "Reaches every month to tens of thousands of readers, especially for teachers, students and school children." / "Dociera co miesiąc do kilkudziesięciu tysięcy czytelników, w tym zwłaszcza do nauczycieli, studentów i młodzieży szkolnej."?
      • You need to go and check scholarly journals, this means journals that have a peer review structure. Google Scholar is a good __first__ step, but then you need to check that the journal itself meets scholarly standards. (Usually in their submission requirements, or guides for authors, they outline their peer review status).
    • Text & citations
      • Prelude is entirely uncited, this is unacceptable for B class.
      • The second para of Battlefield is entirely uncited, this is unacceptable for B class
      • The first para of Opposing forces, and the last (analytical) sentence in the second para are uncited…
      • "though in fact there were only two." who are you reliant upon for this claim?
      • Most of the 4th para of August 13th is uncited
      • Najczuk, p. 1 is a web source. A reference to "p. 1" is not an adequate citation allowing for the location of the supporting element of the document as webpages aren't paginated. For short web documents (under 10 paragraphs) it is reasonable to expect a person to locate the evidence for themselves, just like it is reasonable to ask someone to search over about 10 pages in a page based citation by scanning for nouns etc... However, Najczuk is quite a long web document; we cite web documents like so:
        • By section titles, "Blogs, Section: The running of the hares" or "Blogs, §"The running of the hares"; for multiple sections... "Blogs, Sections 1–3" "Blogs, §§"The running…"–"The hiding…"
        • By paragraph number or starting phrase, "Blogs, Paragraphs 44–48", "Blogs, ¶¶"Once along the lane…"–"He ran swiftly for his…"
      • In English "quotation" is used for quotes shorter than 3-4 lines (think a paragraph on the web), for paragraph citations we usually use blockquotes. Italics are not used. When you cite a primary source contained in a secondary source (ie: by using a quotation), you need to cite the secondary's citation of the primary, "Kevin Blogs said, 'I love my darling wife.' [fn] Blogs 14 January 1900 to Blogs, Jane as quoted in Eriksdaughter, The lives of the Blogs pp.14–16" [This is an exception to the strong no PRIMARY use in history articles, but is an illustrative, not a demonstrative use, see WP:HISTRS which is in beta].
      • Is the italics in "The Polish HQ at Warsaw was petrified to hear of the complete destruction of the 19th [Lithuanian-Belarusian] Division, a report that fortunately for the Poles proved to be false." emphasis or quotation? If so is it a quotation from a primary source or a secondary source's scholarly opinion? If it is emphasis, why should wikipedia editorialise emphasis here?
    • This is not an exhaustive list of criticisms, but a demonstrative list. Apply the principles behind the above to the rest of the document: quotation by English language style, proper attribution, scholarly sources, citation of sources that allow you to make claims.
  • It isn't a B article yet, but it is an important battle, and will make an excellent contribution to the encyclopaedia's best content after polishing the claims and the writing. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks for the extensive list. I already fixed most of those in the article (check the recent changes; my personal fork of your list above is located here). Most of them were easy. However, I have trouble with point 1.1 (citing sections). What is it that you want me to do? Cite names of chapters if there are any? Or not cite them?

As to reliability of particular sources:

  1. Godziemba (2011). "Polskie czołgi pod Warszawą w 1920". niezalezna.pl. Grzegorz Wierzchołowski. Retrieved 2011-10-06. A column in a newspaper? - will get rid of it, not that the fact it was sourcing was anything controversial anyway
  2. Rocznik Mińsko-Mazowiecki doesn't exist in Ulrich's periodicals directory; there's no indication it is peer reviewed; it seems to be a local year book? - it's a yearly journal published in Minsk Mazowiecki. The article in question was authored by the same guy who wrote the 1990 Bitwa Warszawska 1920 roku [Battle of Warsaw of 1920]. Apart from being a specialist in this area (a military historian), he (pl:Janusz Odziemkowski) is also a professor at the Academy of General Staff, former head of the Military Historical Bureau of the Polish Army, former head of the Council for the Protection of Struggle and Martyrdom Sites and, most importantly, a well-established author. So, if you asked me, I find his works pretty reliable. Of course, if you really, really insist I could for instance replace citations leading to his 2000 article with, say, his 1990 book. However, it would be time consuming and wouldn't change anything much.
  3. Władysław Kolatorski. "Bitwa Warszawska". radzymin.pl. Urząd Miasta Radzymin. The Municipal Council Radzymin isn't a known historical publisher - looking for a replacement. Odziemkowski mentions 3040 "killed, wounded and missing" without breaking this number up. Any ideas?
  4. Piotr Kożuchowski (2010). "11 Dywizja Piechoty w bitwie warszawskiej". Zecernia. Retrieved 2011-10-24. This is a blog. - This is a citation from a book. Replaced it with a ref to the actual book.
  5. (Polish) Janusz Szczepański (2002). "Kontrowersje Wokół Bitwy Warszanskiej 1920 Roku". Mówią Wieki (8): 30–38. "Reaches every month to tens of thousands of readers, especially for teachers, students and school children." / "Dociera co miesiąc do kilkudziesięciu tysięcy czytelników, w tym zwłaszcza do nauczycieli, studentów i młodzieży szkolnej."? - I strongly believe Mówią Wieki is a reliable and reputable source. While somewhat "light" (you wouldn't find doctorate theses published there in extenso, rather 20 page excerpts), it is certainly a well-established historical journal, with more than half a century of history, strict publishing rules, published by the most respected Polish publishing house specialising in recent history (Bellona) and previously by Polish Scientific Publishers PWN, the most respected Polish publisher of academic publications. As to the google translation above, "student" in Polish means "university student", younger people are "pupils" and "młodzież szkolna" is literally "school-going youth", ie. college students in English, not pre-school kids :)

Let me know should you see any more problems with the article. //Halibutt 21:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Chapters in Books where the Book is sole authored. For example: Fifelfoo My love of Wikipedia. We can simply cite it as Fifelfoo My love of Wikipedia p7 in a footnote; or Fifelfoo My love of Wikipedia in the bibliography. However, where there is one chapter which deals solely or overwhelmingly with the article's subject it is valid to cite it as Fifelfoo. "Citations". My love of Wikipedia. pp. 15–30.. The issue here is what is the appropriate courtesy to the reader? What style do you as the author like? Chapters aren't essential, for instance, if we use material from two chapters of my hypothetical book, or my entire book is called citations...
I'm only commenting where I need to disagree, or explain my agreement with your actions below:
" Rocznik Mińsko-Mazowiecki " concur that as a published academic/professional historian Odziemkowski can publish his opinion on the Battle of Warsaw and attendant battles wherever he likes and it'll be a high quality reliable source. (See WP:HISTRS for advice on how to determine if someone is an expert historian, you did it exactly right).
If the highest quality source, Odziemkowski, covers the casualty total as 3040 without breaking it up, then we might want to follow his lead on this, "3040 total casualties, including wounded and missing"?
Kożuchowski: perfect, citing the book is far better than the blog
Szczepański—I had a double problem with this source. English language glossy magazines of history tend to be appalling. Their audience tends to have a naïve conception of history-as-fixed-facts, their authors can occasionally be good, but they write to their audience. I understand (from Hungarian experience) that Central European intellectual culture does differ…but I also understand that the popular journals for people acting like intelligentsia are often well below scholarly standards. This source seems to suffer from a combination of both problems. (As an aside, Oxford University Press publishes a lot of stuff aimed at collegiate / undergraduate students; much of which isn't appropriate for an encyclopaedia). This one I really need to leave to you to determine because my ability to read Polish (pl-google-translate) isn't up to the task of determining the quality of the source. I'd suggest you read the spirit behind WP:HISTRS and then make your own evaluation about the quality, if it is scholarly, or popular, and how far you should rely on it. Given your responses above I trust you to make this value judgement. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Valid points, but sometimes MW is the only source for a given piece of information. While it would be nice to be able to use academic works, in case of Poland, little of that is accessible online. Which I know is hardly a perfect excuse, but if given a choice of using MW as a reference or not adding content to Wikipedia, I am inclined to use MW. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 03:57, 15 November 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/Battle_of_Radzymin_(1920)/archive_1&oldid=1089907579"