Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Battle of Szigetvár

Battle of Szigetvár
This article just passed as a B class on a WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests. Need suggestions to improve the article further. Thanks! Kebeta (talk) 15:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Kyriakos
Overall, it is a good article but there are a few points that you can improve on in this article.


 * The lead should be expanded to explain a bit more about what is said in the article. - Will do!
 * It would be good if you could add a new section at the start of the article, explaining the background of the topic like the Ottoman Conquest of Hungary.✅
 * The aftermath section would be better off not having any subsections and just having the casaulties and the consequences as seperate paras instead of seperate sctons.✅
 * It would be good if they See Also section could be removed. The first two links in the section are already incorporated in the article so there is no need for them there. There other two links could be incorporated into the new section at the start.✅

Good luck and I hope this help. Kyriakos (talk) 02:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Kyriakos for your quick review! I agree with you, and will implement this into the article. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 16:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Wandalstouring

 * "The count Zrinsky scorned all answer to the insulting offer, and only fought with the greater desperation, when superadded to religious and national hate, there grew up within his breast the incitement of personal indignation.[14]" Needs to be verified with a modern source. I don't see how this offer can be insulting, it's pretty normal for that age. National hate needs definetly a source, we are in early modern times, the national concept will evolve a few centuries later.
 * "heroic obstinate commander" needs to be balanced. It's not always heroic to be obstinate and not every hero is obstinate. And it was a hopeless cause, so everybody fighting for a hopeless cause is a hero?
 * "One disputed view by a historian asserts is that before leading the final sortie by the garrison" Who says that. "a historian" is not precise.
 * "colossal booby trap" is an exageration. It was pretty normal that the powder magazine blew up in this time, either by a direct artillery hit, by carelessness or on purpose.
 * "Hundreds perished when the magazine exploded." and "The Vizier and his mounted officers had just time to escape, but 3000 Turks perished in the explosion which shortly followed." contradict each other. if 3k died it's thousands. if 300 died it's hundreds.
 * The number of survivors is contradictionary. Were there only four men saved by the Janissary or were there more?
 * You need to discuss sources on these events. What bias do they have. Take a look at Greco-Persian Wars for an example. This is very important because the strong national feelings of Hungary and Croatia are being tied to this event.
 * 19th century sources have other problems that are discussed in modern works and someday somebody will discuss the problems of our modern historiography, however, you must make the reader aware that the waves of nationalism played there part in shaping perception of this event. Thus be careful with old sources and check whether this information is still used in the same way in modern historiography.
 * I have not a clue what the men are fighting for. It makes hardly sense to defend an undermanned fortress for a few weeks and it wouldn't have made any difference for a determined Turkish army that was set out to conquer Europe. Please explain the reasons why this battle happened at all.
 * You totally ignore Turkish politics. The death of the Sultan resulted in a bloddy powerstruggle between the grown up male descendants with only one survivor(in early times the other brothers of all his women were killed, later they were imprisoned in the harem). Information in this power struggle gives one side a decisive advantage and thus the events are linked to the dynastic politics. While the military action by this ban was pretty senseless, he got a lucky hit. Still the theory that the sultan didn't have a comfortable life and died because of that needs more than one source because it's a very questionable theses.
 * more to come Wandalstouring (talk) 13:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Wandalstouring for your review! I agree with you in some point, and disagree in some others. But, I think that after a necessary copyediting, we will see things more alike. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 23:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)