Talk:Battle of Kliszów
![]() | Battle of Kliszów has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 19, 2012, July 19, 2014, July 19, 2016, and July 19, 2021. |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Untitled
[edit]The text says both armies had about 20,000 soldiers. The template says the Swedish army had 12,000 and the Polish had 24,000. Which is correct? – Alensha talk 14:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
name
[edit]Technically this should probably be under "Battle of Kliszów" per the usual naming conventions, although this is a minor point.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Kliszów seen to be more frequently used and is also the name for the battle in Swedish. If you're suggesting a move, I support it. Imonoz (talk) 18:28, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Proposed merge of Draft:Battle of Kliszów into Battle of Kliszów
[edit]Draft has some information not in article. Draft and article should be compared. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:28, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
Copy Editing
[edit]I've started reviewing and editing the article copy per Alexander Alejandro's request. Here are my notes so far:
Too much detail in intro? Per MOS, lead section for an article of this size should be one or two paragraphs- Flank vs wing? "Flank" sounds more appropriate when talking about maneuvers and locations, but under Line of Battle, "wing" seems more appropriate. Could use advice
- Line of Battle better as a list?
The Crown Army section is especially bad butthe whole section seems unsuited for paragraph structure. Will review MOS Is M in Field marshal capitalized? Likely, will confirmShould Ryttmästare be italicized? Will review MOSIs Cavalry General a title? Need to research
Exobiotic 💬 ✒️ 04:30, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
GA Review
[edit]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.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Kliszów/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Amitchell125 (talk · contribs) 05:56, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Happy to review the article. AM
Review comments
[edit]Lead section / infobox
|
---|
More comments to follow. Feel free to start on the above, I'll cross out any comments I can see are sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:05, 29 July 2023 (UTC) |
1.1 Context
|
---|
More comments to follow. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:44, 29 July 2023 (UTC) |
1.2 Swedish invasion of Poland
|
---|
|
1.3 Prelude
|
---|
|
2 Battlefield
[edit][32][33][34][35][1] – the first of the multiple citations, possibly an example of WP:OVERCITE. The only citation in English here is over 250 years old, and cannot be consider a reliable source (WP:OLDSOURCES).
The section has a lot of places that make a picture of the battlefield area quite tricky. To help me, I had to produce a map, which I have uploaded here.I would consider adding it.
3.1 Swedish army
|
---|
|
4 Battle
|
---|
|
5.1 Swedish
|
---|
|
5.2 Saxon–Polish
|
---|
|
6 Aftermath
|
---|
|
9.1 References
|
---|
|
9.2 Bibliography
|
---|
On hold
[edit]- What an enjoyable article to review! I'm provisionally putting it on hold for two weeks until 19 August to allow time for the issues raised to be addressed. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 20:15, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
- Hello @Amitchell125! I kindly thank you for your GA review. I have addressed most of your comments, but I have a few questions:
- Regarding the multiple citations, what is an acceptable amount of citations for a single text section? Should I minimize them to a certain amount?
- What is considered an old/unreliable source? About the Adlerfelt & Fielding citation, one of TWO English citations in this article, why is it not considered a reliable source? A different volume of this citation is being used in the featured article Battle of Warsaw (1705), with the article in question having even older sources.
- What is your thoughts about the new subsection titles for the battle section?
- They look just right. AM
- You want me to link chevaux de frise in the battle section, despite it already being linked in the battlefield section?
- Apologies, my error. AM
- I will be occupied writing an article in Swedish Wikipedia for the coming days. Can you give me an additional week for Kliszów?
- Feel free to add additional comments if you find more errors. Have a good one!--Alexander Alejandro (talk) 22:42, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
- I've added a week. I'd like closure by then, as the article is complex and takes effort when returning to it after a while. Amitchell125 (talk) 06:34, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
- Hello @Amitchell125! I kindly thank you for your GA review. I have addressed most of your comments, but I have a few questions:
Multiple citations
[edit]According to WP:OVERCITE: A good rule of thumb is to cite at least one inline citation for each section of text that may be challenged .... Two or three may be preferred for more controversial material ..., but more than three should generally be avoided.
- to 2,000 men on the battlefield,[82][84][93][79][76][87][5][57] - one citation is needed.
I would only have one citation wherever needed everywhere else if possible, as the information only needs to be verified once. Amitchell125 (talk) 06:44, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
1740 source
[edit]See WP:SOURCETYPES and WP:OLDSOURCES, which includes the statement: newer ... sources may have done a better job of collecting more reports from primary sources and resolving conflicts, applying modern knowledge to correctly explain things that older sources could not have, or remaining free of bias that might affect sources written while any conflicts described were still active or strongly felt.
I think using a source written by an employee of the Swedish king might be challenged as containing biased information, as facts may be inaccurate and were certainly not verified at the time, and is not balanced by information from the Polish/Saxon side. More modern neutral sources do exist—where they have already been used, the 1740 citation can be removed (specifically, refs 20, 25, 28, 32, 63, 71, 80 82 (all four), and 97).
I would look for more modern sources to replace—if it can be done—anything written before 1900, as modern scholarship has moved on since then. Certainly for beyond GA, only modern (last 50 years?) scholarly articles or books would be acceptable.
Hope this helps. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 07:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Passing
[edit]All seems done bar the multiple/old citations. I think at GA such matters can be allowed, but were you to take the article further, I'm sure you would be challenged about them. Passing now, many thanks for your efforts. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
- Wikipedia good articles
- Warfare good articles
- GA-Class military history articles
- GA-Class European military history articles
- European military history task force articles
- GA-Class Nordic military history articles
- Nordic military history task force articles
- GA-Class Polish military history articles
- Polish military history task force articles
- GA-Class Early Modern warfare articles
- Early Modern warfare task force articles
- GA-Class Sweden articles
- Low-importance Sweden articles
- All WikiProject Sweden pages
- GA-Class Poland articles
- Low-importance Poland articles
- WikiProject Poland articles