Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Baia

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Baia[edit]

Another important battle of Moldavian Prince Stephen the Great. I would say it easily meets all criteria for A-class. --Eurocopter tigre 17:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose for the moment. I have left some comments on the Talk:Battle of Baia. Summary: Some copyedit issues and POV bias/weasel words. Woodym555 17:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Improvements have been made per Woodym's comments. --Eurocopter tigre 18:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support now as long as the issues on your talk page are dealt with. I have given it a thorough copyedit to remove the "narrative". I also fixed the refs and the infobox. Good work overall. Meets A-Class. Might need another copyedit before FA though. Woodym555 21:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Good work. Cla68 (talk) 07:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now, I'm afraid. My specific concerns are the lead, notes and references, and foreign language sourcing.
  1. The lead is rather short, see WP:LEAD. It should summarise the rest of the article. I'd expect it to be between two and four paragraphs.
  2. Notes and References is a much bigger problem, see WP:CITE. References should refer to a specific publication or a specific website, with sufficient detail to identify it. Every note should cross-refer to a reference (most people use Author's surname, plus page number of the book). So for example, when citing: Iorga, Nicolae. Istoria lui Ştefan cel Mare 1904 (new edition 1966), Bucharest. simply have <ref>Iorga, p 94</ref>. This makes it much easier to tie the notes to the publication/website. Citing Miechowski, Maciej. Chronica Polonorum. is not helpful unless it links to the specific page. You should really have retrieval dates. See Second Ostend Raid and Victoria Cross (Canada) for good examples of book and web citing. If you want to be really neat, you can wikilink them like here Battle of the Gebora so that the Ref is highlighted when you click on the Cite.
  3. Language issues, see WP:RSUE. I'd like to see more English language sources. Otherwise, at least the key points needs to cite the original language text for comparison.
--ROGER DAVIES talk 20:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding your last point, per WP:RSUE,English-language sources should be used in preference to foreign-language sources, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality - i'm afraid in this case we don't have any english source of equal quality available. As for the rest of the points, I will try to fix them on Friday, because my time doesn't permit to do this sooner. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 21:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely, entirely understood. But as I mentioned above WP:RSUE does explain what to do when you translate text yourself and you don't follow that procedure here :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 21:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I fixed the refs and reformatted the lead in two paragraphs (however, I didn't changed many things, as I think the current lead covers the article quite well). --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 14:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • [Chuckle] I had slightly more extensive revision in mind :) The lead is supposed to summarise the article. Perhaps mention the affair had been simmering for a hunded years? The chevauchées and sieges that preceded the battle? Something about the politics? The lead should be summarising the goodies that follow.
  • You haven't quite fixed the refs and you do need to because WP:V is policy not a guideline. As an example, Długosz is normally listed as a ref like this (note change of spelling of author's name to correspond to actual English book title):
Dlugosz, Jan The Annals of Jan Dlugosz: A History of Eastern Europe from A.D. 965 to A.D. 1480 (trans. Michael, Maurice) IM Publications LLP, Chichester 1997 ISBN: 1901019004
You might consider using {{cite book}} for the paper sources and {{cite web}} for the internet ones. For web sources, you need a link pointing to the specific page, plus a retrieval date. At the moment, you just lump them together with a link to an index. Some footnotes (EPITOME RERUM HUNGARICARUM; Ioannes de Thurocz - CHRONICA HUNGARORUM) don't have corresponding sources. One of the footnotes (Moldavian-German Chronicle, The) isn't mentioned as a source though it is on the website index as Cronica moldo-germană. All this needs linking together.
  • You do need to address the issue of the non-English sources as it is WP policy not a guideline, I'm afraid. WP:RSUE explains it. You don't need to include the text in full, just key bits.
--ROGER DAVIES talk 23:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Battle_of_Baia&oldid=1138361041"