Talk:Battle of Grunwald
|Battle of Grunwald 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.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on July 15, 2005, July 15, 2006, July 15, 2007, July 15, 2010, and July 15, 2011.|
Old history of this page
The old history of this page is at Battle of Tannenberg, but a history merge is not appropriate because that page once contained some text that is now at Battle of Tannenberg (1914). Because of the current setup, I think that it would be very difficult to find the old page history, so I think that it's worth noting here. Graham87 10:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
- What do you mean? It leads to Teutonic Knights. Where do you think it leads? Renata (talk) 01:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Grunwald/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose): b (MoS):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
in medieval documents Jogajlo not only Wladyslaw Jagiełło. for example: Cronica conflictus Wladislai Regis Poloniae cum cruciferis anno Christi 1410
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 21:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- And an example?Lithuanian historians only write so. Jogajło a pagan name. Not Polish king of that name.As the Polish king Wladyslaw II only use the name.
Give example of a medieval document, which refers to "jogailo". Jan Dlugosz says, "Władysław Jagiełło". included in the bibliography are works of historians who write Wladyslaw (Burleigh,Christiansen,Kuczynski,Davies,Sven Ekdahl...). At 100 % no one will find the king of the Polish "jogajlo". For someone who knows the history of Polish, this article is not understandable. Bibliography of books talk about Wladyslaw II.
Compliance with MoS
Looking at this edit, where an editor changed all the dates into US format. The article began with dates in International format. As it is not a subject with strong ties to an English-speaking nation using the US format, dates should therefore be in International format. I refer to the Manual of Style:
Full date formatting
In general, the following formats are acceptable:
- Month before day: February 14 and February 14, 1990 (comma required)
- Day before month: 14 February and 14 February 1990 (no comma)
Date formatting in an article is governed by the following three guidelines.
- Dates in article body text should all have the same format.
- Dates in article references should all have the same format.
These requirements apply to dates in general prose and reference citations, but not to dates in quotations or titles.
Strong national ties to a topic
- Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the more common date format for that nation. For the US this is month before day; for most others it is day before month. Articles related to Canada may use either format consistently.
- Sometimes the customary format differs from the usual national one: for example, articles on the modern US military use day before month, in accordance with military usage.
Retaining the existing format
- If an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the whole article should conform to it, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic.
- The date format chosen by the first major contributor in the early stages of an article should continue to be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties to the topic. Where an article has shown no clear sign of which format is used, the first person to insert a date is equivalent to "the first major contributor".
- yeah, the reason for the revert was changing dates and not removing glaring pov pushing... Renata (talk) 03:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- sorry, this rubbed me wrong way. Renata (talk) 04:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Citations needed: naming section
- ...or just remove the unsourced part as, aside from the German and Lithuanian names , I don't think it's that significant. However, there are several other statements made throughout the article which are unsourced, mostly paragraph ending sentences and the like.VolunteerMarek 04:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
A hundred cannons
The article claimed that the Teutonic side had a hundred cannons (with the Polish-Lithuanian side having 16). This is a ridiculously high number, especially given the date. The following book was given as source: Kinard, Jeff (2007), Artillery: An Illustrated History of Its Impact, Weapons and Warfare, ABC-CLIO, ISBN 978-1-85109-561-2. If the book really does say that, then it is not a reputable source. -- Zz (talk) 18:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
I removed the following reference: July of the German Blitzkrieg. This newspaper article in Ukrainian language as is a sample of "Nazi and Soviet propaganda campains" mentioned in the Introduction and in the last section. All sentences citing this article operate with such notions as "ethnic cleansing" "ethnic Ukrainians", "Belorussians", "Blitzkrieg" and other evident anachronisms which are out of place in a serious article on 15 century history. So I removed all sentences that cite this source.--User:Pym1507 (talk) 23:38, 2 September 2013 (ET)