Talk:Kamianets-Podilskyi Castle/GA1

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

Reviewer: Hchc2009 (talk) 19:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll review tomorrow morning. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay... It's really good to see an article on this castle, and a lot of work's clearly gone into it. There are a few necessary changes and issues to address, and a choice on the required copy-editing, listed below. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct;


 * The prose needs a fair bit of work. I can see two ways of doing this:


 * I can go through on this page, and describe what needs to be tweaked. The advantage of this is that I can explain why in each case; disadvantage is that it does take a little longer.
 * I could go through and directly copy-edit the article. Quicker, but then you don't get the commentary.


 * Let me know which you'd prefer me to do!
 * I knew this would be a problem, I'm not too great with tightening up the prose.. If you wouldn't mind, perhaps you could go through it and copyedit it along the way? --ddima/talk 18:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem - will do. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.


 * The section "The twelve towers" is current a list, and needs to be turned into regular paragraphs to pass at GAR. Happy to advice if you need guidance on how to do this.
 * So there is no way that a list type of the "twelve towers" section can be kept? I mean, it's much easier for the readers to see and read the section on the towers, being labelled and numbered as such.. Would be less readable if it were in a paragraph format.. --ddima/talk 20:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There is an argument that this fits the "Children" list recommendation; I suspect that you could present in a paragraph style though - see Architecture and landscape for an example of paragraph text working around the outside of a castle. If you feel strongly, though, I'll give the copy-editing a go, tidy it up a bit, and we can revisit the issue at the end. The MOS prefers prose, but there are, as you suggest, exceptions.Hchc2009 (talk) 21:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

2. Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;


 * "Currently, the preserved northwestern walls..." - this paragraph lacks any references.
 * The article isn't the most strongly sourced I've seen - most of it depends heavily on various official and semi-official webpages, where ideally I'd be looking for academic works. But... I've gone through, and the quality of the sources seems to me to be reasonable for the information being claimed, and in some cases the website belong to serious academics. I'm content at GAR, but would look to see this strengthened if it went to ACR, for example.

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;


 * Fine.

(c) it contains no original research.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;


 * Looks good at this stage.

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).


 * Looks good at this stage.

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.


 * Fine.

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.


 * Fine.

Illustrated, if possible, by images:

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;


 * Kamianets-Podilskyi Castle old.jpg. There's problems with the copyright status of this one. It doesn't have an author or date listed, so the public domain tag is inappropriate. The link to the source is broken as well.
 * Someone's now updated the link, and I've updated the copyright and author details on the page itself to reflect that.Hchc2009 (talk) 06:29, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Kamianets-Podilskyi Castle labeled.PNG. This is a lovely picture, but when I click on the source, www.ukrtourism.com, I can't see anything that looks like the permissions tab listed on the wikipedia entry (The copyright holder of this file allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that the copyright holder is properly attributed. Redistribution, derivative work, commercial use, and all other use is permitted. Required attribution text: by Ukrtourism.com, available from http://www.ukrtourism.com.) That said, I was struggling with the translation, so I'm very happy to be corrected if you can point out to me where Ukrtourism authorises the use of this image on their site!
 * www.ukrtourism.com states at the bottom of the page: "При любом использовании материалов и новостей сайта гиперссылка на http://www.ukrtourism.com обязательна!" translates to "With any use of materials and articles from the site, a hyperlink to http://www.ukrtourism.com is obligatory!" If I understand it correctly, then this means that I can use their images provided they are properly attributed.. right? Hence why I tagged it with that copyright tag.. --ddima/talk 20:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You're probably not going to like my answer... In order for the photo to be used on the wiki, it needs to fit the criteria for "Free Culture License". That involves it being usable "by anyone, anytime, for any purpose" and includes four key freedoms, including a "freedom to distribute derivative works" (derivative in this sense meaning reusing the image - for example changing it, modifying it, borrowing bits of it etc.). The problem with the wording on the webpage is that whilst it implies that you could use material from the site elsewhere if you attributed it, I don't think it suggests in any way that you can distribute derivative works. This sounds horribly like a lawyer's statement, but it is really important from a legal perspective. The law in most countries (including the US) gives this exclusive right on this to the copyright holder, unless they wish to grant it to others, and the wikipedia usually needs explicit permission.
 * Is there any chance of emailing the website and asking them to release it on that basis? I've done it with some UK-owned images, and got a 66% success rate. If you'd like a second opinion, by the way, I wouldn't take any offence at all if you wanted me to check with an image expert on wikipedia, although I'm pretty sure that this is the right interpretation.
 * Hchc2009 (talk) 21:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh no, thanks for the answer! I have emailed them and am hoping for a reply. If anything, I can remove the image and reformat the section into the "children" MOS style guide perhaps adding some of my own images of the towers themselves.. --ddima/talk 15:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I´ve changed the picture to a very similar one and also with higher resolution so the copyright issue won´t be any problem. If other views are needed I have lots of them. Närking (talk) 10:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.


 * A couple of copy-editing points, but passes on this criteria.


 * Apologies for butting in on the GA review, but I consider the density of references quite poor (I've commented on this in the section above). I'll add some cite request tags to the article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk 18:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, ... if you so wish, I will go through my references and place the tags accordingly, which will require some time. --ddima/talk 19:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay so besides the prose work you mentioned above and two more sentences that need to be cited., I believe that everything is as it should be..! --ddima/talk 06:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking that way! I'll have a stab at the prose later today. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, great. I'll be working (off-wiki!) tomorrow morning so I'll search for those two remaining cite ref tags tomorrow afternoon.. --ddima/talk 07:58, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm working my way through. A couple of queries below:
 * "It is also clear from historical and archaeological evidence that an earthen fortress existed in the area during the time of the East Slavic state of Kievan Rus', but this was not the same castle which stands today." - I wasn't sure if this meant that there was a castle (but not this one) on this specific site, or if the earthen fortress was somewhere else in the area altogether.
 * You corrected it the right way.. human existence was found in the area, although it was not on the territory of this castle per se.. --ddima/talk 05:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "An old lithograph of the castle depicting a settlement built up against the castle's walls which exists to this day." - is the "exists to this day" referring to the settlement or the walls?
 * Fixed.. I meant to say that the settlement still exists below the castle walls. --ddima/talk 05:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "Facing a mass epidemic and starvation, a 60,000 force army led by Khmelnytsky reasserted Cossack control over the castle in 1652." - did this mean their siege was successful? I wasn't sure, as the Tartars, their allies, then attack it the following year.
 * "In spite of this event, 101 artillery cannons later saluted the commandant's decision." - I didn't understand the "in spite of" - was the commandant's decision not the right one? Hchc2009 (talk) 17:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I must have used the wrong terminology.. They commemorated the event! --ddima/talk 05:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Getting there! Last two sections to go. In the meantime, some questions:
 * "As an important and large fortification complex, the Kamianets-Podilskyi Castle originally consisted of 12 towers, some of which were added during modernizations to the castle. Out of the original 12 towers, however, only a few have remained unscathed to this day. They are not confined to the peninsula on which the castle itself sits; some of the towers are located on the steep shores across the Smotrych River. There also were other towers such as the Petty Southern Tower[24] which was the Dacia-Roman Tower, another Dacia-Roman Tower stood just outside the eastern walls, and a half tower is located at the western end of the Castle bridge.[25] Specifically, the 12 towers were the:"
 * I've gone for:
 * "An important and large fortification complex, the Kamianets-Podilskyi Castle at one point consisted of 12 towers, some of which were added during later modernizations to the castle. Some of the towers were located on the peninsula on which the main castle sits; some of the other towers were located on the steep slopes across the Smotrych River. There also were other towers such as the Petty Southern Tower,[1] a Dacia-Roman Tower; another Dacia-Roman Tower stood just outside the eastern walls, and a half tower is located at the western end of the Castle bridge.[2] Of these towers, however, only a few remain unscathed today. Specifically, the 12 towers were the:"
 * - can I check my understanding of this? To check: were there originally twelve towers, or does the twelve include the later additions? I've assumed the latter. Does the twelve include the ones of the steep slopes, Petty Southern Tower, etc.? Petty Southern isn't mentioned in the subsequent listing, so I wasn't sure. I wasn't sure if a half-tower was just a short tower either (or a damaged tower?)
 * You got it right, there are 12 towers with all of the additions to the castle throughout the years. --ddima/talk
 * "tilted merlons of the Pope's Tower presented itself as the second printing press of the fortress" - this baffled me. Where the tilted merlons anything to do with the printing press, or are they completely different (but both part of the same tower)?
 * For this I have no answer! I didn't write this piece, it confused me just as much as it did you.. Let's remove it altogether
 * "which in the previous year led to the partial destruction of the castle's supporting walls." - previous as in the year before? (I'm checking because the "led" tense would imply the destruction happened afterwards, (e.g "next year"), not before)
 * Contributed..? would have been a better term perhaps.
 * "erosion" - was this the quicksand?
 * Don't know. Just that the river is flowing right by the foundation contributed to the erosion..?
 * "the walls' depth" - depth as in thickness?Hchc2009 (talk) 19:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Correct,. --ddima/talk 19:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * "In the beginning of the 15th century, a large round gate tower was constructed over the bridge in order to maintain control over the castle's gate. During that time, the bridge's height was equivalent to that of eight modern stories." - I'm trying to visualise it... is it saying that there a large round gate tower constructed at one end of the bridge? Hchc2009 (talk) 16:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's at the northern end by the castle itself (not on the city side). --ddima/talk 16:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Quote: "In a sign of protest, the fortress's Commandant Michał Wołodyjowski and Major Hejking blew up the castle's remaining gunpowder, killing themselves along with 800 defenders." This is probably a silly joke. Wołodyjowski and Ketling (not Hejting) are fictional characters from Sienkiewicz's novel "Mr. Wołodyjowski". In than novel they indeed blow themselves up with part of the castle after the surrender.