Talk:Battle of Kostiuchnówka

Good Article (GA) nomination put on hold
In my opinion this article does not yet qualify for GA-status as it needs considerable editing: Makeshift Thackery (talk) 07:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Remove redlinks, or better still, provide proper links. There are many.
 * Referencing: most if not all relevant references refer to one (Polish) source. The fact that it is in Polish is not a problem in itself, but makes it difficult to verify the information. Moreover, it can not be properly established whether the article is truly NPOV when all info comes from one source only.
 * The article can use some extra images and definitely needs a map.


 * Per WP:RED, red links to notable entities are acceptable. The fact that en wiki has no articles on otherwise notable Polish and Russian localities and military units should not prevent us from promoting related articles.
 * I am not aware of any other English sources discussing this event.
 * I have added a fair use map (Image:Map of battle of Kostiuchnowka 1916.jpg - scanned and translated by me from the Polish original); it got deleted as 'repleacable fair use' despite my argument that it will be near impossible to create one (due to the fact that there are so few sources and that they are so difficult to obtain, as you've noted; see also here). Alas, copyright paranoia people won this one. I have requested a free map to be made; it has not been done (see here). The only solution I have is to add the map I uploaded originally as an external link.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 15:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to agree this does not meet the benchmark of Good Article status, due to having a single source, a lack of imagery and an overall lack of emphasis. I'm not being rude, it's a "good" article, just not a "Good Article". Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 19:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If you can travel back in time and take photos, it would be great. I don't think that there are many more related pictures in existence; I think that the current photo and a painting are more then enough (yes, map would be great, alas - see my post above). There are also very few sources - but point me to ones I have not used in the article and I will do my best to get them, read them and use them to expand it. What do you mean "overall lack of emphasis"? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Photos like http://www.wp.mil.pl/galeria/542/zdjecie_542_6684.jpg or http://www.wp.mil.pl/galeria/542/zdjecie_542_6685.jpg would be nice, modern photos of the memorials. Any chance you can get someone in the area? Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 01:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Not really, not until somebody uploads them to Commons. I am not sure what is the condition of the remaining memorials, though.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 03:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Any ideas on the status of this review? dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I replied and I was not replied to, so I am waiting on whether there is anything else that needs to be done or answered or not :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind taking over this review, if nobody objects in the next couple of days. Nikki 311  21:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Please do. I will be back on Mon/Tue to read comments.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Survey
WP:Good article usage is a survey of the language and style of Wikipedia editors in articles being reviewed for Good article nomination. It will help make the experience of writing Good Articles as non-threatening and satisfying as possible if all the participating editors would take a moment to answer a few questions for us, in this section please. The survey will end on April 30.


 * Would you like any additional feedback on the writing style in this article?


 * If you write a lot outside of Wikipedia, what kind of writing do you do?


 * Is your writing style influenced by any particular WikiProject or other group on Wikipedia?

At any point during this review, let us know if we recommend any edits, including markup, punctuation and language, that you feel don't fit with your writing style. Thanks for your time. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Another map
Rąkowski on p.110 has a map of Kostiuchnówka today, with modern and historical landmarks (such as Polish hill, etc.). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 12:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Category:GA-Class Poland-related articles

Disputed fair use rationale for File:Pilsudski in Kostiuchnówka's trenches.jpg
Regarding and. Sources have been added, and the paintings (at least two of them) are mentioned in the body, as the presence of Pilsudski in that battle has inspired the two authors. I think showing an example of such a painting is justified. That said, I'd support replacing the Garwatowski painting with Gottlieb one, as it would be in PD (he died in 1934). Unfortunately, I cannot find any copy online - once somebody finds it, please replace it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 17:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * From an editor of your experience, I have difficulties reconciling your conduct with an assumption of good faith. You must know that if you'd accept a free alternative as a replacement then the non-free alternative is ipso facto excluded. It also cannot be so hard to grasp that a mere passing mention of the existence of a painting cannot possibly be grounds for a need for visual illustration; only a substantial and sourced critical discussion could. You have a persistent, years-long history of pushing the boundaries on non-free images. This is no longer a harmless failure at understanding our policies; it's a deliberate refusal to understand them. Cut it out. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I resent your bad faithed tone. No matter how experienced an editor is, it is impossible to understand the intricacies of all Wikipedia policies, and I certainly do not claim to have a deep one of fair use images. I appreciate your explanation above, but it could've been done without personal attacks. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 18:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Outcome
The article currently states it was a "Russian victory". When it passed for GA, it was "Inconclusive". It was changed here. Polish Wikipedia's article is quite different, calling it a "strategic Austro-Hungarian victory". Polish Wikipedia article lacks inline references, but suggests that the Russians failed to achieve anything more than a temporary territorial gain, and lost strategic initiative. Putting this aside, looking at the article, "the Russian offensive forced the Central Powers' armies to retreat along the entire frontline; Polish forces were among the last to retreat" suggests to me that we could see this as a Polish (AH) tactical victory, as the defense of this position held, and it was elsewhere on the front that Russians broke through and forced the frontline to retreat. Either way, I'd at the very list suggest restoring the "inconclusive" outcome in the infobox. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 23:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The way the "Battle" section is written (repeated failed attempts to stop the advance of Russian forces and eventual retreat) makes the battle a clear tactical victory for the Russians (they were in control of the battlefield at the end and the enemy was in full retreat). The Brusilov_offensive section of the Brusilov offensive article suggests that this was a strategic victory as well, as the general offensive continued here as well. If there was something inconclusive about the outcome, it needs to be added to the article text first, sources and all. --illythr (talk) 13:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, my reading of the exact same sections suggest that Russians might have had a strategic victory on the larger front, indeed - but not at Kostiuchnówka, where the front was maintained. Polish forces here were forced to retreat by Russians successes elsewhere, so it seems to me an Austro-Hungarian forces. Russians gaining control of the battlefield was not the result of their victory on the field here, but elsewhere. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 14:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm reading this: Throughout the day, the Russian offensive managed to push the Polish forces further back; although the Poles managed to temporarily retake Polish Hill, a lack of support from the Hungarian forces once again tipped the battle towards the Russians, and even German reinforcements – deployed after Piłsudski sent a report to the army's headquarters about the possibility of a Russian breakthrough – failed to turn the tide away. and can't interpret it as anything other than a victory for the attackers. It might be that the original author meant this to say that the hill stood fast as the battle ended and had to be evacuated in the aftermath. Then this battle would've been inconclusive. But with the current wording it looks like the Russians, although unable to achieve an immediate breakthrough - and thus decisive victory, - could still apply enough pressure to force their opposition into retreat.
 * The side that is in control of the battlefield and has the opposing side in retreat achieves a tactical victory even if the enemy retreats on their own. It's the strategic implications that may cast a shadow on the success, but I'm not seeing any in the text here. The Polish article makes a claim that this battle cost the Russians the initiative in the general offensive. Would be a good argument here, if sourced. Otherwise looks odd, seeing as how that offensive had rolled on for almost two months before exhausting. --illythr (talk) 17:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. I see your point. For now, I have no other sources to dispute this. By any chance, can you find any source we could cite with regards to the result? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 18:13, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh, I wanted to suggest the same. :-) My search in Russian sources yielded next to nothing - a couple of references to the "failure at Kostiuchnovka" in June and a "success" in July. It appears that this battle is significant only for Polish historiography (probably due to Pilsudsky's participation). This snippet quotes one "K.Dzhivanovsky" (spelling definitely wrong) who calls the battle a crushing defeat of the Austrian Army, using it to criticize the idea of the Polish Legions per se. It appears that the answer, if it exists, is to be found in Polish sources. --illythr (talk) 19:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * More due to the high casualties then Piludski, but could be half/half. And you are right, more research of Polish historiography is needed. Btw, AFAIK, the battle served to increase the reputation of the Legions, not to diminish them. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 00:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Kostiuchnówka
Kostiuchnówka is a Polish name of a multinational place.Xx236 (talk) 10:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * This page is pure Polish propaganda. The forces ranged against the Russian Empire were Austro-Hungarian and German. The various divisions which made up those armies are immaterial. 86.174.147.112 (talk) 08:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Battle of Kostiuchnówka. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111113225051/http://www.pilsudski.org:80/English/Gallery/Gallery.htm to http://www.pilsudski.org/English/Gallery/Gallery.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927204519/http://www.mon.gov.pl/artykul_wiecej.php?lang=1&idartykul=2056 to http://www.mon.gov.pl/artykul_wiecej.php?lang=1&idartykul=2056
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071007091627/http://www.magwil.lt/archiwum/2003/mww3/kov13.htm to http://www.magwil.lt/archiwum/2003/mww3/kov13.htm
 * Added tag to http://vwww.osen.pl/biblioteka-historyczna/recenzje/1064-kostiuchnowka1916najwiekszapolskabitwaiwojnyswiatowej.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:56, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Wiki main says Russians won victory but the article says indecisive.
1916 – First World War: Russian troops won a victory in the Battle of Kostiuchnówka, with the Polish Legions playing a key role on the Austro-Hungarian side.

vs

Date July 4–6, 1916 Location Kostiuchnówka (Kostyukhnivka) 51°20′35″N 25°45′35″E Result Indecisive

Which is it? Both are from wikipedia. 2600:1700:1B00:15FF:DE9:EAA:F624:F71C (talk) 18:18, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Result
@Dushnilkin you have been constantly changing the result to a Russian victory, how about it stays on the klong standing version so on Inconclusive. I think that the overall result should go on the aftermath section. Olek Novy (talk) 18:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)


 * The Russians completed their task and the legion retreated, this cannot be indicated as an "indecisive result", I think you just need to indicate: "Russia's victory, slowing down the Brusilov offensive" Dushnilkin (talk) 10:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think there is a term like "Strategic Retreat" and plus its mentioned over here: that The resistance of the legion units prevented the Russians from encircling the Austro-Hungarian formations in the Styr bend. the battle was Inconclusive. Olek Novy (talk) 11:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This does not mean their victory. If in your opinion to prevent encirclement and surrender the position = indecisive, then indicate on the page of the great retreat of 1915 that this is not a victory of the central powers, but an indecisive result Dushnilkin (talk) 11:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * the great retreat was followed with defeats of the Russian army and plus the great retreat compared to this is a military campaign Olek Novy (talk) 11:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, the Russians prevented the encirclement, according to your logic, this is an indecisive result. In addition, I pointed out two sources for the victory of the Russians, one of which is the memoirs of Ludendorff. He claims that this offensive in the Styr bend was a complete success for the Russians. Dushnilkin (talk) 11:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I indicated all the details in the end, including the prevention of encirclement, from the point of view of Wikipedia, tactical success and taking a position = victory of a certain side (at least if you rely on other articles) Dushnilkin (talk) 11:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * this is what Waingertner writes: From the point of view of the general operational situation on the Eastern Front and the local one in Volhynia, the most important thing was that, as a result of the fierce resistance put up by the Polish Legions, the Russians did not achieve the main objectives of the attack: the Polish and Austrian troops failed to surround and destroy them, and the losses incurred during fighting by the Russian troops and the fatigue of the Russian soldiers from the three days of fighting prevented them from continuing their rapid pursuit march. This is why the Russians did not quickly appear over Stochod, which had a high chance of being successful if they were forced on the march. At the same time, the German and Austro-Hungarian commands hastily brought new forces to the threatened section of the front, preventing the enemy from taking advantage of the fact that the legionary units had been pushed back. Olek Novy (talk) 12:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Ludendorff in his memoirs claimed that none of the commanders could even think about holding the front on the Stokhod River, I think the assessment of a combatant would be an authorityLudendorff in his memoirs claimed that none of the commanders could even think about holding the front on the Stokhod River, I think the assessment of a combatant would be more authoritative.(page 224) And the delay in the offensive during this period was caused by the grouping of the 3rd and 8th armies of Brusilov, he writes about it in his memoirs.(page 259) Dushnilkin (talk) 13:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * can you maybe send me his memoirs? Olek Novy (talk) 13:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I can only give you Brusilov's memoirs, since the link to the Ludendorff quote is found as a source in Alexey Oleinikov's book Dushnilkin (talk) 14:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * nothing like ths is said on page 259: Olek Novy (talk) 14:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If you give me your discord, then I will send you a photo from my publication where he directly writes that in the period from July 1 to July 15, the army was reorganized Dushnilkin (talk) 14:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this is the difference between the editions Dushnilkin (talk) 14:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I checked your link, you made a mistake, it's Ludendorff's memoirs, in this case it's on page 226 Dushnilkin (talk) 14:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It only says that the Austrians compelled to withdraw by July 7th which i already mentioned that the Russians could not take advantage of that. Over here: it mentions that the offensive was delayed and moreover here: it says that the attack by Russian forces failed. Even if some Russian sources say that the battle was a Russian victory that would leave the result Disputed. Olek Novy (talk) 06:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You ignore the fact that the offensive stopped due to the reorganization of the 8th Army, which included the 46th corps, this battle had no effect on slowing down the offensive. Dushnilkin (talk) 07:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you send me a source where it says that the " offensive stopped due to the reorganization of the 8th Army" Olek Novy (talk) 06:57, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I pointed it out on the page, Brusilov wrote it in his memoirs Dushnilkin (talk) 07:09, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * As i siad the offensive was stopped by the 8th army on July 15th while the battle ended on the 7th of Jully, and also since the battle has sources claiming that it was a Austrian victory while some call it a Russian victory then the result is disputed Olek Novy (talk) 19:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Or over here: where it mentions a "tactical victory" for Austro-Hungarian forces. Olek Novy (talk) 06:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * How can this be a "tactical" victory if the Austro-Hungarian and German troops have completely retreated? This may only be a strategic success, but it is not caused by a battle, but by the reorganization of the Russian armies Dushnilkin (talk) 07:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)