Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Kostiuchnówka


 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Battle of Kostiuchnówka

 * Failed --Eurocopter (talk) 12:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I wonder how close this GA-class article is to a MILHIST A-class? I do think I exhausted all the sources available to me when writing it. I found and translated a map for the article, but it got removed as it was not free enough and I could never get a mapmaker to make it into a free one (and I gave up... if you know/are a willing mapmaker, please help :). Currently the map is available as an external link: --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * The lead is very short.


 * The article itself is short.


 * There are a huge amount of redlinks.


 * The word 'is considered' should be cited. Ṝ ed M ark V iolinist Drop me a line 17:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply: lead can be expanded, WP:WTA can be applied. But please provide sources for expansion - I run out. Also, red links simply indicate bias/lack in our coverage (most of them refer to Ukrainian villages), and not a problem with the article itself.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment The article being short shouldn't be grounds for an oppose; even in FAC, it's not about length, as opposed to how complete the article is. If there isn't a lot of information, obviously the article will be short. On the other hand, if this was the largest battle Polish forces were in, why are there not more sources? JonCatalán(Talk) 18:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply. There are more Polish sources, but not online. See further reading section in the article, as well as those mentions.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you tried to get all the books that are available, and looked at the snippet view on google books for the ones that a library near you doesn't have and you aren't able to purchase?
 * Snippets are worthless. I will look into getting the books.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment


 * The lead needs to be expanded a bit, it's a tad anaemic at the moment
 * Some MoS problems, mainly with the titles 'The battle' should be 'Battle', and that massive picture in the infobox just stretches everything out
 * Seems a tad POV as well - 'The battle is considered the largest and most vicious of those involving the Polish Legions in World War I'. Now, I know this is sourced, but as a lone sentence it seems POV, and could do with some expansion - who considers it that? Who are they and why is their opinion significant?
 * Needs more sources on Russian figures; even approximations with a note stating the sources are vague/unknown would be better than what there is at the moment Skinny87 (talk) 18:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply. I think the lead is comprehensive, I am not sure what to expand upon in it. I have referenced, qualified and better improved the sentence about importance. The sources I have don't have info on the Russian figures other than those given in the article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * In the Background section the Brusilov Offensive should be explained a bit more.
 * In the infobox, having question marks is bad. There really should be numbers, or at least something that looks more professional than a question mark, such as "Unknown".
 * The article is riddled with grammatical and stylistic errors. It needs a very thorough copy-edit. Some parts are so error-riddled that the sentences don't make any sense, especially in the Opposing Forces and The Battle sections.

I cannot support it until these and the problems mentioned above are resolved, especially the need for a copy-edit. – Joe Nu  tter  15:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Changed ? to unknown and asked for a copyedit. Can you explain why we need more details of the Brusilov offensive there? It has its own article, after all. I have copied a ref sentence from the lead to BO article to give a little more information on it to the article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC) The infobox and background are better now, although it'd look better if you replaced "The Brusilov Offensive" in the new sentence with a pronoun.– Joe Nu  tter  21:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * comment I'm not very familiar with the ACR process, so I won't support or oppose, but that final paragraph of the lead needs to be expanded upon or merged into another paragraph. ~ the editorofthewiki  ( talk / contribs / editor review ) ~ 00:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, get more familiar! :D We need more reviewers, if you are willing...  Allanon  ♠The Dark Druid♠ 07:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Merged.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 12:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.