Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Radzymin (1920)


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

Closed/promoted -- Ian Rose (talk) 12:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Radzymin (1920)

 * Nominator(s): — // ''Halibutt 12:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Procedural renomination, as the last one did not generate the minimum of three reviewer comments needed; only two reviewers commented with a support. So here we go with round two, hopefully the last round. In the meantime all the issues from the previous assessment have been addressed and the article was also nominated to GA status.

The previous attempt at A-class is located here.  // Halibutt 12:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 *  Conditional support. Few minor remarks:
 * I am seeing the "¶" symbol in references. I doubt it should be there.
 * The yearly re-enactment is organized by who?
 * The article seems to be missing some redlinks. For example, Northern Front is mentioned, but not linked, whereas it has an article on pl wiki: pl:Front Północny (1920). Similarly, military units mentioned in text are not linked, even through I am sure some if not all have articles (and are linked in the infobox, ex. "the 8th, 11th, and 15th Infantry Divisions, with the 1st Lithuanian-Belarusian Division"). Villages are notable, yet Ruda and Zawady are not linked. Those are just the missing links from the first section.
 * At the same time, there is some overlinking; Vistula for example is not linked upon its first mention in text, then is linked several times, including at least twice in one section. I'd recommend at the very list checking if terms are linked on their first use in body, and that they are not linked more often than once in each section.
 * Captions should not introduce new, unreferenced information. It seems to me that the second part of File:Polish-soviet war 1920 Polish defences near Milosna, August.jpg caption introduces unreferenced information not present in the article, and mostly irrelevant to the picture anyway.
 * Good job otherwise, please ping me when the above issues have been addressed, or a reply is expected. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 14:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "¶" symbol was introduced after User:Fifelfoo explicitly pointed out that it should be there to mark paragraphs during the first round of A-class assessment. I could replace it with the word "Paragraph" if you prefer, but I believe it's ok as it is.
 * "organized by who" ✅
 * Underlinking - ✅ (at least those you mentioned)
 * Overlinking - ✅
 * Captions - now sourced. In general wiki seems to be in conflict over what a good caption is. Some prefer to have short, informative captions with info only on the picture while others prefer to use the pics pretty much like historical books do: to carry additional info. I sourced the captions, but feel free to shorten them should you feel the need to. ✅
 * Feel free to add more comments.  // Halibutt 01:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Great. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 01:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Comments: I reviewed this last time. Its changed a little bit since then, so I've gone over it again. I have the following suggestions:
 * slightly inconsistent: "counter offensive" v "counter-offensive"
 * "47th Kresy Rifles Regiment (Lt. Colonel Szczepan)". Some readers won't know what "Lt." means. It is probably best to spell it out in full "Lieutenant Colonel". I think generally in the past most ACRs/FAs have asked for ranks to be spelt out in full rather than abbreviated;
 * "Combat value of Polish units". Probably should be: "The combat value of Polish units...";
 * why is this presented in italics: "as the number of bayonets and sabres, that is to..."?
 * this could probably be tighter: "One of the officers of artillery noted". For instance could just be: "One of the artillery officers noted...";
 * "the 85th regiment retreated...". Should this be: "the 85th Regiment retreated..."? AustralianRupert (talk) 13:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ (diff): ranks linked and/or expanded, changed to counter-offensive, definite article added, italics changed to quotation marks (it's a term of the epoch, not used in modern times, hence the graphic distinction), artillery officer tightened, capital letter corrected. Good spotting mate :)  // Halibutt 13:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My comments have been dealt with, so I've added my support. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - good content and references (although I know no Polish). I trust the copyediting done by others is satisfactory. Were the images all published before 1923? I'm not quite sure what "published" means in this context. I think we can assume they were passed around the Polish military, is that satisfactory for the license? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Took a closer look at old pics used in that article. All of them are under Polish pre-war copyright law (and the post-war act of 1952). That is the PD-Polish boiler plate. Which means the American rule of "published before 1923" is not really relevant here. What is relevant is whether a clear copyright notice was published (or stored) along with the picture. As it was neither obligatory nor customary back then, we're safe to use . In most cases Anonymous-EU is also applicable, as the military archives didn't care much for authorship of pictures back then, neither did the news agencies.  // Halibutt 22:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * For an image to be hosted on Wikimedia Commons, it has to be appropriately licensed in its country of origin and the Untied States. The files' status within the US should be made out. If the file is in the public domain in the US because publication occurred before 1923, then we do need to know if the file was actually published at the date mentioned, rather than merely taken. If the file is in the US for another reason, such as publication between 1923 and 1977(or 1989) without US formalities, well, again, we need a publication date. If it was only published when the files were put on that particular website, then, as I understand it, the author might become important. Most of this I imagine you were already aware of, but I couldn't think of a way of laying it out without making it seem slightly patronising to the informed. I think further clarity is needed. (Also, thanks for pinging me. Worth doing so in the future, as well.) Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm not an expert in current Wikimedia Commons practices. Judging by the fact that the has been there for 8 years now and nobody ever questioned it as a valid copyright template, it's all ok. If indeed dual licensing for the US is needed, then either PD-1996 or PD-US are also applicable. Is there any particular problem with any particular photo you're having, or is this just a "just in case" discussion? Anyway, I'll poke Piotrus, who uploaded some of the pictures I added to the article, he might have more info here.  // Halibutt 22:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, commons:Commons:Licensing makes the dual licencing part clear "that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work." I accept the Polish licence, it's the US status I'm worried about.
 * The point in hand is that I'm not entirely satisfied that these files (all of them are the same, I think) tell us enough about their "publication" to establish that they are in the public domain in the US. If, when they were taken, they were publicised - put in a newspaper, journal, that sort of thing, then we're fine. The files don't say that they are. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 23:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "If it was only published when the files were put on that particular website...". By "that particular website" I assume we mean Commons? So what if this is the case? Is publishing a public domain photo for the first time in US somehow removing it from public domain?? I smell copyright paranoia raising its ugly head :( PS. PD-1996 (commons:Template:PD-1996) was already mentioned and seems quite helpful here. Add this to the relevant photos and move on. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 03:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There's really no possibility of the photographs not being considered in PD in the U.S. P ЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 05:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * (outdent) PD-1996 would be a lot more suitable. Piotrus, I meant archiwa.gov.pl by that "particular website". I think if we use PD-1996 then we can say "or after 1978 without copyright notice" and "it was in the public domain in its home country on the URAA date (January 1, 1996 for most countries)." and we can rely on the publication at archiwa.gov.pl as its first publication, as long as we assume that it was a Polish photographer. I'm happy to accept that assumption, but I think it should be stated. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you adjust one image in a way you would like to see those templates / additional notes added, so we can clearly see what you consider to be the best practice here? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 17:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Infobox image done as an example. I'm not a IP lawyer, but I think this is a lot clearer. Probably worth double checking at Commons if you go to FAC. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I modified all the other pics accordingly (namely: 1, 2, 3 and 4). Thanks for helping guys.  // Halibutt 18:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. 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.