Wikipedia:Peer review/Siege of Vyborg (1710)/archive1

Siege of Vyborg (1710)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this article already undergone successful GA- and A-class reviews, and I feel like it's time for the next step of promoting it to FA status. As the primary author of the article, it is difficult for me to impartially and independently assess my own work, so I need others' help in doing so.

Any sort of constructive criticism or comments would be helpful, and I would especially like to make sure the prose is good enough, seeing as there were issues with it before.

Thanks, Interchange88 ☢ 21:33, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Brief comments from Nikkimaria

• See here for a list of potentially problematic links  Done
• File:Vyborg_1710_medal.jpg - since this is a coin, we need to determine both the copyright of the coin itself and the copyright of the photograph of it. To which does the licensing tag present apply, and what tag is appropriate for the copyright not represented?
  • The coin is in the public domain simply because of its age, and faithful, non-artistic reproductions of coins are also public domain. --Interchange88 ☢ 19:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Not according to Commons: "a photograph of a coin has two requirements before it can be included. The first is that the design of the coin itself is not copyrighted, or permission has been obtained. The second is that the photographer agrees to license it under a free licence. A picture of a 3D-object creates in most jurisdictions a new copyright on the picture." Nikkimaria (talk) 02:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
      • More specifically, Commons:Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag#Photograph of an old coin found on the Internet is our exact guidance, based on the opinion of Mike Godwin, quoted in this discussion: WT:Non-free content/Archive 25#Photographs of ancient coins. It doesn't matter whether the medal actually is a coin or not, it appears that the photographer is able to generate a copyright because it's a 3-D object (unfortunately). Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 04:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
        • Ah, that's a pain in the butt. Andrew McIntyre provides a convincing argument in favor of reproductions of coins being in the public domain here, but if Wikipedia policy is as such then I'll just remove the image because there's really no way to know who the author was or what the copyright status is. --Interchange88 ☢ 19:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
• Generally speaking, ellipses aren't needed at the beginning and end of quotes, but only in the middle where material is omitted.  Done
• Kolobov harvlinks don't appear to be working  Done
  • I believe that if the date is unknown/unavailable in a work, the proper format for Harvard referencing is to put "n.d." I'm not sure why but this makes the links not work, so I removed it.
• References need publishers. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
  • For a lot of these, it's hard for me to find out, but I can try! --Interchange88 ☢ 21:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the article as I would at FAC.
• Lead:
  • Dates for the Great Northern War? Done
  • Date for the Battle fo Poltava? Done
  • When did the troops lay seige initially?  Done
• Background:
  • Could we have a bit of background to the Great Northern War? A bit of understanding on why the Russians and Swedes were fighting might be nice...
  • "In 1710, the Russian army undertook an offensive in two directions: on the Baltic coast (where, in the fall in 1709, Riga was besieged).." Why are we mentioning actions that took place in 1709 if we're discussing offensive actions in 1710?  Done
  • I'm still clueless on why it was a surprise that the command staff was selected...  Done
    • I got rid of that. --Interchange88 ☢ 22:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
  • "and to the west of the wall between Evrop Eleonora was another ravelin" what is "Evrop Eleanora"? And quickie explanations of bastions, ravelins and capioners... Done
  • "The garrison at Vyborg in 1710 stood at 6000 men;[5] modern historians B. Adamovich and A. I. Dubravin put the number at 4000." okay, who says the garrison was 6000 then???  Done
  • "The fort had 151 guns at its defense." This sentence would be better placed up with the dsecriptions of the various towers and stuff.  Done
  • "This was not the first time the Russian army had attempted to take Vyborg; in October of 1706, a siege corps was sent there under the command of Robert (Roman) Bruce." Several things wrong here - First "This was not the first time..." is informal, suggest something a bit more formal. Second, we do not use the construction "October of 1706" "October 1706" is correct per the MOS. Done
  • Is there an article for the 1706 seige? If so, we need to link to it, if not, we really should have one for all of these details, which belong there, not in the article on 1710 seige.
    • Siege of Vyborg (1706) does not exist. If you wish to make that article, please go ahead. I believe the small amount of information that is included in the 1710 article is totally appropriate for proper background. --Interchange88 ☢ 22:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
  • No need to link "fall" here or "bombardment" or "Saint Petersburg" again in the last paragraph.  Done
• Russian attack:
  • "February 1710" not "February of 1710"  Done
  • Is "the day of tomorrow" correct?
    • Yes, those are the words used in the quote. --Interchange88 ☢ 20:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
  • No need to link cavalry.  Done
• Russian forces:
  • Why do we have three citations to the one block quote?  Done
  • No need to link "bomb"  Done
• Number:
  • Instead of "(None of these historians referred to sources.)" suggest "N. G. Ustryalov believed that there were ten 12-pounders and five mortars, M. M. Borodkin counted 24 cannon and four mortars, and M. V. Vasiliev 12 cannon and four mortars, although none of these historians give their sources for their figures." Done
  • "(This was the only recorded time when Swedish artillery managed to disable Russian equipment.)" In ever recorded history, ever ever? Or just in this seige? Needs clarification.  Done
  • "Thus, it appears that there were originally 12 cannon brought to Vyborg, but only ten of them were used in the siege, as two of them were disabled." .. this is a conclusion of a historian, and needs attribution. Done
  • "This was because it was very difficult to move them over land, and there was not enough ice to bring them the same way the original cannon came." this is the first mention that the cannon came over the ice .. should be mentioned with the arrival, not here.  Done
• Initial bombardment:
  • "April 1" but you've given all other dates as "1 April". Be consistent.  Done
  • "Either way, it is known that Russian fire began either in the last few days of March, or the very beginning of April." is redundant and should be removed.  Done
  • "However, the mortars inflicted great damage upon Vyborg and the fort, forcing citizens to find cover in cellars, while soldiers had to remain positioned on the mounds." the "while" implies that the cannon fire was what forced the soldiers to remain on the mounds, which is clearly not very sensible. Suggest replacing "while" with "although" or eliminating the last phrase completely.  Done
  • Why is "the production of an opening" in quotes?
    • Because the article is quoting the generals. --Interchange88 ☢ 20:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
• Reinforcements:
  • No need to link Saint Petersburg here for the third time.
  • "The tools needed for the siege were taken from the.." tools? What sort of hammers and screwdrivers were needed for a seige???
  • NO need to link Kotlin Island again here.
  • "He could not postpone his sailing due to a shortage of ammunition and provisions at Vyborg." I'm not getting the connection between this sentence and the preceding sentence.
  • Why is "hauling a small cannon onto the bowsprit and dropping it onto the ice" in quotes? Someone stated it, so you need to attribute it.
  • "Many provision transport ships were driven off course by winds or ice, and they were barely rescued." I'm not sure what this sentence is supposed to mean...does it mean that the provision ships were driven off course or that the transport ships were driven off course or both types? And how were they rescued?
  • No need to link "truce"
• Final:
  • No need to link twilight.
  • Who said "there was made a great breach, that two battalions were lined up on either side to take the city"?
  • Why is "storm" in quotes?
  • No need to link surrender
• Aftermath:
  • Why is firm cushion in quotes?
    • Because those are the exact words Peter used to describe the fort. --Interchange88 ☢ 20:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Really. No need to link Saint Petersburg (AGAIN!)

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) Ealdgyth - Talk 01:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)