Talk:Battle of Kliszów/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Amitchell125 (talk · contribs) 05:56, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Happy to review the article. AM

Review comments

 * Unlink Swedish; Polish (MOS:OL).
 * Augustus II the Strong - ‘Augustus II the Strong of Saxony’, to be consistent.
 * the capital Warsaw – it perhaps needs to be clearer to readers that Warsaw was the Commonwealth’s capital.
 * intelligence Augustus - ‘intelligence that Augustus’.
 * at the village of Kliszów – this place should be introduced as a village in the first sentence.
 * Copy edit: with Swedish army attempt to encircle.
 * which were driven - ‘which was driven’.
 * Add a comma after parts of Poland.
 * Having three dates clutters up the infobox imo. I would give the alternative dates in a separate note.
 * Link engraving in the infobox

More comments to follow. Feel free to start on the above, I'll cross out any comments I can see are sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:05, 29 July 2023 (UTC)


 * laid siege to the city of Riga should linked together, not simply laid siege.
 * Image - I would replace the caption with 'Daniel Stawert, Battle for the Crossing of the Dvina, 1701 (1707), Drottningholm Palace'. I have done quite a lot of artists and paintings articles on Wikipedia, and this format seems to work quite well, so I would amend the other captions for the paintings in the article.

More comments to follow. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:44, 29 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Lithuania – consider amending the text to Grand Duchy of Lithuania (already linked), as readers may confuse this country with the modern state.
 * the Commonwealth's capital Warsaw – ‘Warsaw, the Commonwealth's capital’ sounds better imo.
 * unopposed to conquer the city - ‘to enter the city unopposed‘ sounds better imo.
 * he gave orders – ‘Charles gave orders’ for the sake of clarity.
 * Gyllenstierna in Warsaw – in Warsaw is redundant, and a little confusing.
 * Weichsel river – it’s not clear why this links to Vistula.
 * Link cavalry where it is first mentioned.


 * Link line up (Line (formation)); columns (Column (formation)); reconnaissance.
 * Thirty Swedish dragoons under Captain Tomas Funck repulsed the attack – consider amending to something like ‘The attack was repulsed by thirty Swedish dragoons under Captain Tomas Funck’, to avoid starting the sentence with a number.
 * ❌ to be done? to arrive at his camp – probably not GA, but it’s normal practice for the citations here to be in numerical order. This also applies with multiple case elsewhere in the article.

2 Battlefield

 * ❌ [32][33][34][35][1] – the first of the multiple citations, possibly an example of WP:OVERCITE. The only citation in English here is over 250 years old, and cannot be consider a reliable source (WP:OLDSOURCES).
 * The section has a lot of places that make a picture of the battlefield area quite tricky. To help me, I had to produce a map, which I have uploaded here.I would consider adding it.


 * Link the following articles in the Swedish Wikipedia to link Swedish officers (I have done Peter Wetzler and Hugo Johan Hamilton for you already): Jacob Burensköld; Alexander Stromberg; Knut Posse (kungligt råd); Gustaf Henrik von Siegroth; Claes Ekeblad den äldre; Bernhard von Liewen; Henrik Otto von Albedy; Johan Reinhold von Trautvetterl.
 * I’m unclear about the maps – what is the source for them? Is the licencing correct? This map may be more suitable.
 * Add commas after regimental guns; in front of Borczyn; right cavalry wing.
 * in the battle – ‘prior to the battle’ would seem more accurate, considering the text that follows.
 * Arrayed - sounds redundant.
 * The right wing's 21 squadrons – the sentence is too long, and should be split into separate ones.
 * I would split the multiple image, as it illustrates troops that feature in two subsections, not simply this one.
 * Drabant Corps squadron – is squadron needed here?
 * Link Ryttmästare – amend to Ryttmästare, here and in the casualties section.


 * Otto Vellingk:is a duplicate link (his first name is not used at this point).
 * (not GA) In the caption, I would add '(Polish Army Museum)' with a link, as this is where the painting is currently located.
 * Add a comma after Kulaki Height.
 * Link wetlands (Wetland); grove (Grove (nature)); Gustav Adam Taube (he’s in the German Wikipedia); chevaux de frise.
 * Consider dividing the section into subsections, something that might help readers.
 * parallel – at the same time, or positioned in parallel? It’s not clear.


 * This title and the following one are identical with ones further up, and so should be amended.
 * every wounded officer - ‘that every wounded officer’.


 * Avoid war chest – it wasn’t a real chest (see MOS:IDIOM).
 * The Swedes seized Augustus's chest, the Russian envoy's chests to the value of - something like 'The Swedes seized Augustus's store of funds and equipment, and the massed funds of the Russian envoy's chests to the value of'. Amitchell125 (talk) 12:41, 6 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Augustus's father – ‘that Augustus's father’.


 * Dup links: Duke of Holstein-Gottorp; Swedish Pomerania.
 * The map appears to be self-published, and so cannot be treated as a reliable source.
 * Link embalmed (Embalming).


 * Check all page ranges are written with ‘pp’, not p (which is for single pages).


 * Iko should say '(in Swedish)'. Ditto Nelsson.
 * Frost has a url here
 * (not GA) Use this tool to ensure your ISBN numbers are consistently formatted.

On hold

 * What an enjoyable article to review! I'm provisionally putting it on hold for two weeks until 19 August to allow time for the issues raised to be addressed. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 20:15, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello @Amitchell125! I kindly thank you for your GA review. I have addressed most of your comments, but I have a few questions:
 * Regarding the multiple citations, what is an acceptable amount of citations for a single text section? Should I minimize them to a certain amount?
 * What is considered an old/unreliable source? About the Adlerfelt & Fielding citation, one of TWO English citations in this article, why is it not considered a reliable source? A different volume of this citation is being used in the featured article Battle of Warsaw (1705), with the article in question having even older sources.
 * What is your thoughts about the new subsection titles for the battle section?
 * They look just right. AM
 * You want me to link chevaux de frise in the battle section, despite it already being linked in the battlefield section?
 * Apologies, my error. AM
 * I will be occupied writing an article in Swedish Wikipedia for the coming days. Can you give me an additional week for Kliszów?
 * Feel free to add additional comments if you find more errors. Have a good one!--Alexander Alejandro (talk) 22:42, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I've added a week. I'd like closure by then, as the article is complex and takes effort when returning to it after a while. Amitchell125 (talk) 06:34, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Multiple citations
According to WP:OVERCITE: ''A good rule of thumb is to cite at least one inline citation for each section of text that may be challenged .... Two or three may be preferred for more controversial material ..., but more than three should generally be avoided.'' I would only have one citation wherever needed everywhere else if possible, as the information only needs to be verified once. Amitchell125 (talk) 06:44, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * to 2,000 men on the battlefield,[82][84][93][79][76][87][5][57] - one citation is needed.

1740 source
See WP:SOURCETYPES and WP:OLDSOURCES, which includes the statement: ''newer ... sources may have done a better job of collecting more reports from primary sources and resolving conflicts, applying modern knowledge to correctly explain things that older sources could not have, or remaining free of bias that might affect sources written while any conflicts described were still active or strongly felt.''

I think using a source written by an employee of the Swedish king might be challenged as containing biased information, as facts may be inaccurate and were certainly not verified at the time, and is not balanced by information from the Polish/Saxon side. More modern neutral sources do exist—where they have already been used, the 1740 citation can be removed (specifically, refs 20, 25, 28, 32, 63, 71, 80 82 (all four), and 97).

I would look for more modern sources to replace—if it can be done—anything written before 1900, as modern scholarship has moved on since then. Certainly for beyond GA, only modern (last 50 years?) scholarly articles or books would be acceptable.

Hope this helps. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 07:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Passing
All seems done bar the multiple/old citations. I think at GA such matters can be allowed, but were you to take the article further, I'm sure you would be challenged about them. Passing now, many thanks for your efforts. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)