Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Radzymin (1920)/archive2


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 18:10, 28 April 2012.

Battle of Radzymin (1920)

 * Nominator(s):  // Halibutt 01:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I started an extensive re-write back in October (from this stub). The re-write got out of hand and the article ended up being a GA and an A-class article. It has had extensive copyedits for GA and A-class already (big thank you to Adamdaley, Piotrus, Demiurge1000, AustralianRupert and Vecrumba). During the previous (failed) FAC User:Nikkimaria raised some concerns about some of the pictures in the article and incompatibility of 1920s Polish copyright legislation and modern American laws. To avoid further problems I simply removed those pictures altogether. I believe the article is ready for FAC now.  // Halibutt 01:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per my previous comments. Also, I don't believe that the images in question, dating to 1920, are copyrighted anyway. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 01:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: Archived on 26 February; was consent fom delegates given for this quick renomination? Brianboulton (talk) 23:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ueh, I feel more bureaucracy creeping in. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 18:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No idea what are you talking about. There were not enough voters in the preceding FAC. If the idea behind coping with WP's backlog is to wait a couple of months between renominations which noone attends anyway, then feel free to take this attempt down.  // Halibutt 21:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read the the FAC page: "If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a delegate; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a delegate will decide whether to remove it. Nominators whose nominations are archived with no (or minimal) feedback will be given exemptions." This is not bureacracy "creeping in", it's been the rule for ages. You may well qualify for exemption, who knows? But you should try and work within the rules, and be a little less aggressive while you're about it. Brianboulton (talk) 00:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The only issue raised was the pics. I removed the pics thus resolving the issue. If we have to wait for two weeks for this or that reason - fine with me. Not that I understood what would that give us.  // Halibutt 14:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Replying on your talkpage. Brianboulton (talk) 21:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments. WP:Checklist will explain some of these. - Dank (push to talk)
 * Done "Polish-Soviet War": en-dash per WP:DASH and per that article. Check throughout; use a dash when the meaning is "to" or "between". (WP is a bit idiosyncratic on this.)
 * Not sure "north-east", "defences", etc. aren't American English, but the date format (August 13) seems to be.
 * Done "in the area around": near
 * Done "counter-offensive": counteroffensive (per Cambridge Dictionaries, for instance)
 * "the battle was one of the key parts of what later became known as the Battle of Warsaw.": I don't know what that means.
 * Probably, "a key part" or "one of the parts" "one part" would be better here. - Dank (push to talk) 16:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Done "Latinik, and part": Latinik and by part
 * Not sure"The army consisted of four understrength infantry divisions: the 8th, 11th, and 15th Infantry Divisions": repetition. "The army consisted of the understrength 8th, 11th, and 15th Infantry Divisions"
 * Done "modern engineering equipment, making crossing them difficult.": modern engineering equipment for the river crossings
 * Not sure"This also inhibited": what inhibited?
 * Done "lay in ruin": "lay in ruins" is more common
 * Done "WWI": write it out. "First World War" is more commonly used in BritEng articles.
 * Done "where Narew flows": where the Narew flows. - Dank (push to talk) 04:54, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Done "a line of World War I Russian and German trenches located west of Radzymin, neglected since their construction in 1915.": a line of World War I trenches west of Radzymin, neglected since their construction by Russians and Germans in 1915.
 * Done "three Polish infantry divisions: 11th": ... the 11th
 * Done "(Bug river – Leśniakowizna), 8th (Leśniakowizna-Okuniew) and 15th (Okuniew-Vistula River).": (from the Bug River to Leśniakowizna), 8th (Leśniakowizna to Okuniew) and 15th (Okuniew to the Vistula River).
 * Done "newly-arrived": newly arrived
 * Done "achieved ... to force rear echelons": achieved ... putting rear echelons
 * Done "the front-line service": front-line service
 * Done "that is to say soldiers": or soldiers
 * Not sure "came not from the east, as expected, but from the north-east. Warsaw was to be assaulted from the east by the 16th Red Army.": I'm not following ... what happened when?
 * Not done "14th Red Army ... It was then": Sometimes you use "it" for units, sometimes "they". Be consistent.
 * Done A technical point: replace '" by so that it displays correctly.
 * Done "counter-attack": counterattack
 * Done "News of the defeat at Radzymin reached Warsaw the same day. It caused panic among both the government and the ordinary people.": News of the defeat at Radzymin reached Warsaw the same day, causing panic among both the government and the ordinary people.
 * Done "the Prime Minister Wincenty Witos": Prime Minister Wincenty Witos
 * Done "future Pope Pius XI": the future Pope Pius XI
 * Done "General Haller, in his dispatch ..., called": More common is "In General Haller's dispatch ..., he called" or "General Haller's dispatch ... called".
 * Done "Commander-in-chief Józef Piłsudski": it's usually "Commander-in-Chief" in AmEng; not sure about BritEng
 * Done "The loss of Radzymin also caused ...": See WP:Checklist; use a less absolute word than "cause".
 * Done "Rozwadowski, and member of the French Military Mission to Poland General Maxime Weygand, even suggested ...": Rozwadowski and General Maxime Weygand, a member of the French Military Mission to Poland, even suggested ...
 * Done "a euphoric, but fantastic, report": "fantastic" doesn't usually mean "the stuff of fantasy" these days.
 * I got down about halfway, to Battle_of_Radzymin_(1920). - Dank (push to talk) 14:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * WHo added the templates? Please remove them; see WP:FAC instructions (they create errors in the archives).  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I fixed most of the issues you raised above. In the case of two I'm not sure.


 * As to Gen. Haller's dispatch above, would "In General Haller's dispatch of 01:00 hours the same night he called the Polish defeat (...)" be ok?
 * Yes, the text as it stands now is fine. - Dank (push to talk)
 * As to WP:Checklist, would "The loss of Radzymin also forced ..." be ok?
 * As long as the source makes it clear that he had no realistic choice. - Dank (push to talk) 15:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As to those marked as either not done or "not sure":


 * AmE vs. BE - the article is and should be in BE. However, the WP:DATE states clearly that both formats are fine and doesn't mention anything of one being used in BE articles and the other in AmE articles. Is it really necessary to change all the dates?
 * See WP:STRONGNAT, which is a section of WP:DATE (also called WP:MOSNUM). - Dank (push to talk) 13:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Your suggestion to change "The army consisted of four understrength infantry divisions: the 8th, 11th, and 15th Infantry Divisions" into "The army consisted of the understrength 8th, 11th, and 15th Infantry Divisions" would change the meaning. All three were understrength, whereas your wording could suggest that only the 8th was. I simply changed that part to "The army consisted of four understrength infantry divisions: the 8th, 11th, and 15th". Would that do?
 * Yes.
 * "This also inhibited" This in this context refers to the sentence immediately before this one. Namely: the lack of engineering equipment. Any idea how to word that?
 * In that case, I recommend changing "The Red Army lacked modern engineering equipment for the river crossings. ¶ This also inhibited ..." to: "The Red Army's lack of modern engineering equipment for the river crossings inhibited ..."
 * As to your "what happened when?" remark above - I don't understand what is your problem with the sentence. It doesn't mention what happened when at all, and it wasn't meant to. It merely explains that the Poles expected the attack from the East and the Russians also generally wanted to attack from the east, yet the first fights started to the north-east.
 * What you're saying here is clearer than the way you phrase it there (which is why copyeditors ask questions ... often, the way people respond when challenged is easier to follow).
 * It and they when referring to units. I use "they" consistently when speaking about "forces" and it when speaking about a particular unit. Is that an error?
 *  // Halibutt 11:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I can't find a problem at the moment. - Dank (push to talk) 15:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * As to date format, I don't believe a battle between Poland and Russia is a topic "with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country", as the page you cited says. Neither UK nor US or any other English-speaking country has any "strong national ties" to this topic. As far as I know those countries have no ties whatsoever to this topic, be them strong or weak. Or is there something I'm missing here?
 * As to "The loss of Radzymin also caused/forced..." - the source uses the word "zmusił", which is most often translated as either "forced" or "caused". However, in Polish it has slightly different meaning than in English as it doesn't necessarily mean that there was no alternative. There always are alternatives in war after all. Not sure how to word that.
 * All the other issues solved. Please check if the recent changes make the article any better.  // Halibutt 08:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I generally try to keep my time on FACs under two hours, and I'm over that now. Hopefully someone else will check the changes and finish the copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 13:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Too bad, I was hoping for your support once we're finish with this 7th round of CE :) Whom should I poke to continue what you started? All copyeditors I know already did CE this article...  // Halibutt 19:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll post a request at WT:MHC. - Dank (push to talk) 23:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Support: I made a couple of minor tweaks. Please check that you are happy with my edits. I have the following comments for review:
 * Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. I finished it up, except that the last sentence is unclear and needs rewriting, without the word "recent" per WP:DATED: "There is a yearly re-enactment of the battle on August 15, organised in Ossów and Radzymin since 1998, in recent years organised by various re-enactment groups and a local powiat administration." - Dank (push to talk) 18:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I made an attempt to reword that sentence. Is that better? Feel free to change it back if it doesn't. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's better, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 02:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries. Thanks for your work on the article. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I reviewed this at ACR and it has improved since then;
 * minor nitpick, some of the Notes end with full stops and others don't;
 * at one point you use the term "First World War", but elsewhere you've used "World War I". Either is fine, but it should probably be consistent;
 * the duplicate link checker tool identifies a number of instances of terms that might be considered to be overlinked: 11th Infantry Division (Poland), World War I, Modlin Fortress, Lesniakowizna, Torun. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Done, done and done :) As to duplicate links, I already checked that thoroughly with AWB. The reason some links are overlinked (3 instances at most, 2 in most cases) is that they appear both in the article, infobox and/or tables within the text. Hence I believe it is better to leave all 2 or 3 instances linked than to leave unlinked name in the infobox and linked in the main body.  // Halibutt 22:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Have all image issues been resolved? And has a spotcheck of the sources been done? Ucucha (talk) 14:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * All images people had trouble with were removed from the article altogether. Not sure about the spotcheck.  // Halibutt 00:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. OK, I'd like to see a sourcing spotcheck before promoting this article. Ucucha (talk) 00:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Support. This is truly a wonderful article. I took some time to read it and also check across Google books if the information given here was ok and everything seems reliable. --Lecen (talk) 17:31, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Note - Thanks to Lecen to taking the time to check. I too found spotchecking this article difficult. There is no Google Books preview of "God's Playground: 1795 to the present" for example. Checking "The eighteenth decisive battle of the world:Warsaw, 1920" I found:
 * Article: News of the defeat at Radzymin reached Warsaw the same day,[40] causing panic among both the government and the ordinary people
 * Source: ...and the suburb of Radzymin in the immediate vicinity of Warsaw was lost, retaken and lost gain. On the evening of the 14th Pilsudski received alarming telegrams from Warsaw, painting the situation in most gloomy... (P. 83) The telegrams described in an alarming fashion the general feeling in the capital. (P. 144)

I found no issues. Given these difficulties, and the obvious scholarly nature of the article, I am happy to assume good faith on this occasion with regard to the other sources. Graham Colm (talk) 18:06, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.