Talk:Siege of Viborg (1710)/GA1

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

Reviewer: RCSprinter123 (talk) 10:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

OK then, lets get cracking.

First of all, non of the references actually make any sense unless you can read Russian, and as this is on the English Wikipedia it isn't really reliable. You could translate the references, but not really the pages they link to (even though only four/53 refs actually link to a website). You'll have to find some reliable sources in English. RCSprinter123 (talk) 10:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Now, lets make a checklist.

The article is mainly clear, but a little confusing in parts. Spelling and grammar seems alright, so

All the manual of style guidelines are there

Now as mentioned above, can't really accept most of the citations so they'll have to be fixed before I can list it; but there doesn't seem to be any original research.

Yep, it addresses all the main aspects of the topic - namely the siege - and doesn't go into unnecessary detail.

It is perhaps leaning away from neutral, so nothing obvious, so I'm willing to let that go.

Fine for edit wars etc, nothing happening.

And there are plenty of images - 6 of them - and they are all in the public domain with relavant tags and captions.

There are seven s, and two s, so the majority speaks for itself. However, before I can list it, you need to fix the citations.

You have contributed to it alot, and made it so no problems there. You use all the proper templates and things, so thats fine. All I'm really stressing is the refs. In the lead section, you need to make clear the name. See, the name of the page is "Siege of Vyborg (1710)", but then you've put the bold text at the start of the article as "The Second Seige of Vyborg". You either need to rename the page or correct the lead text, because it makes it confusing to a reader.

You're getting, on average, 20 views a day, which isn't that many, and usually need lots of viewers to make it a GA, or there'll be no point. There've only actually been 4 contributors, which means that there hasn't been many people improving it. One of these was a bot, and the other ones spelling and tweaks to wording. Community page? I think not. On the whole though, you might pull through, just get something done about the refs. Please reply to the discussion below. RCSprinter123 (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I said reply to the discussion below. (also see my notes below that) RCSprinter123 (talk) 13:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, please explain where you think it's confusing - I'm willing to work to get this article in good shape.
 * The main reason I have only Russian citations is because there is literally virtually nothing out there in English (that is reliable). I will translate the citations, but I can't remove or change them without taking massive chunks out of the article.
 * Yes, I am Russian, so it may lean a bit to that side, but again, nothing obvious. I guess this is where independent editors come in.
 * Yes, I have changed the lead section name.
 * I'm not sure that there would be no point, but I understand what you are saying. However, I work with the Russian and Soviet military history task force, and some of the Good Articles listed there get less than ten views a day, such as Ivan the Russian (which I think needs to be delisted), Soviet cruiser Kalinin, Polikarpov VIT-1, Battle of Kostiuchnówka, just to name a few.-- Interchange88 ☢ 12:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Just a little confusing around the lead or Prior Events, perhaps, but you rectified the bold text at the start so that finishes it really. ✅


 * Go ahead and translate the Russion citations, but if there isn't really anything there I can't list it. ✅


 * Nothing happening with the neutrality. Lead section name, fine. And the no. of viewers thing doesn't really matter. I just though I'd bring it up while I was looking. ✅


 * That's it really. Comment on anything you wish to, or I'll list it as a Good Article. RCSprinter123 (talk) 13:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks like everything's been addressed! I will continue improving the article regardless of its status; I certainly think it's ready to be a Good Article. Thanks for your help! -- Interchange88 ☢ 16:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)