Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Smolensk War

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 page.

[edit] Smolensk War

This GA class article is, I hope, quite comprehensive and well written - hopefully A-class. In any case, comments by MILHIST would be much appreciated. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support. The article is detailed, lengthy, neutral, and lacks any glaring stylistic, spelling or grammatical errors. I can't be sure of its accuracy or comprehensiveness, as this is far from my field of expertise, but it seems well-cited and gives the appearance of being comprehensive. There's something about the writing style that makes it seem a bit unprofessional to me, but that's not necessarily a bad thing, and I'm not quite sure exactly what I'd suggest to change if I were to suggest so. One minor thing - could we include the Polish/Lithuanian/Russian name(s) of the conflict somewhere in the lead, or in a language box infobox on the side? Nice work. LordAmeth 01:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

  The Polish name is just a Polish translation of 'Smolensk War'; it can be taken from the interwiki link. I don't know about the Russian one, as it is in cyrillic. PS. The only thing that I am still unhappy as the article is concerned is lack of the map with battles, but that's hard to find or make for such relatively unknown campaigns :( -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

  Even so, I would include both (which can be taken from the interwiki links). It just seems more authentic that way, I think. I try to include the native Japanese name in every article I do, and where relevant to include the Chinese and/or Korean names as well. That way the "true" name of the event, that is to say the name of the event in the language to which it is most relevant, is represented. LordAmeth 11:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Informative and interesting article that meets the criteria and appears to cover the subject appropriately. I would suggest, however, not having mid-sentence citations. Instead, I would combine them all at the end of the sentence, or even all of them at the end of the paragraph. Cla68 06:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

  Usually mid-sentence citations are used for very specific claims or numbers, so it is easy to see which specific fact comes from which source - if lumped together at the end of the statement, that wouldn't be possible.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  06:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Preliminary Support I'm having too much trouble reading the words right now, but it looks comprehensive and well cited, and there are images (although I may suggest trying to find a more uniform size for them). I will look at it in the morning, assuming I feel better then. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support. The only things that I can suggestion is that you remove the See ALso section and if possible lengthen the lead. Kyriakos 09:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment — Awesome work on the article... it's really high-quality information about something I didn't know much about. Two things stick in my mind, though: You mention a Swedish delegation in the first section, but there's no further information about what came about as a result of those talks between Sweden and Russia. I infer from the lack of Swedish intervention that nothing happened, but it'd be nice to state that in the article. Also, building off of Kyriakos's suggestion of removing the See Also section, did the war affect the Thirty Years War going on at the time? I know this is in the period of the Swedish phase of that war, and am wondering if that affected the situation at all. I'm not an expert by any means, but those are two questions that lingered in my mind. Good work! JKBrooks85 17:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

  Unfortunatly I don't have the refs with me, IIRC the Muscovites signed an alliance with the Swedes but decided to act before the Swedes were ready (hence the sentence later states "and unilaterally attacked without waiting for the Swedes and the Ottomans"). I don't mind if the see also is removed; however I think there are a few scholars (a minority) who classify this conflict as part of the TYW (which I think most scholars disagree with).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

  I missed that sentence. Thanks for pointing it out. Support. JKBrooks85 20:06, 2 October 2007 (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 page.