Talk:Battle of Grunwald

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article 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.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
November 16, 2006 Good article reassessment Delisted
August 25, 2010 Good article nominee Listed
Current status: Good article

Old history of this page[edit]

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)

Broken Link[edit]

The link to Teutonic Knights in the lead in paragraph points to the wrong location Docdave (talk) 00:54, 15 July 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)

GA Review[edit]

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.

Reviewer: mark nutley (talk) 21:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Passed quick-fail check. mark nutley (talk) 18:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
Is this review is over or not?? M.K. (talk) 04:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
No i am still working on it but time has been short, i shall finish it tonight mark nutley (talk) 06:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Władysław Jagiełło[edit]

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 213.199.253.225 (talk) 21:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC) 
Hundreds of academic sources uses Jogaila, thus name stays. M.K. (talk) 04:37, 25 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[edit]

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.

Format consistency

  • 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".

Thanks! --Pete (talk) 01:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

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)
That's okay - looked like it was an attempt to change dates to the wrong style. I'm staying well out of the POV aspects of the battle itself! --Pete (talk) 08:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Citations needed: naming section[edit]

The naming section is not properly referenced; refs need to be added for this article to maintain its GA status. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 22:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

...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[edit]

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)

Ethnic cleansing[edit]

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)

Name[edit]

Why "Grunwald"? Every history book I have seen calls it the Battle of Tannenberg. The Germans call it that. 'Grunwald' looks like an Anglicisation of the name 'Grünwald', derived from a label attributed by one chronicle. The Battle of Tannenberg in the Great War was explicitly named after this mediaeval battle.

Hogweard (talk) 12:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality[edit]

I call into question the neutrality of this page (and thus it's status as a good page), while it indeed provides sources the sources chosen can also reflect a lack of neutrality, there are a lot of overly specific details in this article that is unlikely that they should be known about a battle that took place 600 years ago, usually in reference to dramatis personae which makes it even less crediable. Someone should really go over these soruces and move what's unproven myth based on contemporary sources and later embelishment to it's own paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.254.139.195 (talk) 11:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Picture declaration[edit]

The declaration of the picture in the Part "Battle end" seems wrong: The Tatar-warriors at Tannenberg wasnt muslims. Regards--MAGISTER (talk) 06:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Mention of the Golden Horde in the infobox.[edit]

Especially the future Khan Jalal-ad-din that the Lithuanian Great Duke welcomed him in his country. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 10:48, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Grunwald. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:47, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Teutonic heavy cavalry among the best?[edit]

While less numerous, the Teutonic army had advantages in discipline, military training and equipment.[31] Their heavy cavalry was among the best in Europe.

Is there actually any source to the latter claim? It's a pretty tall one considering the contemporary forces of pretty much any Western country (or Polish and Lithuanian knights, for that matter). 66.234.40.164 (talk) 04:01, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out, I have made it more vague. Renata (talk) 18:10, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Casualties[edit]

As of now, only the knights are listed as casualties (which, as pointed out by Renata3 makes sense since the sources are pretty sketchy). However, I think this at first glance makes it look that no other were killed apart from the knights, and in turn gives an unfair picture of the battle. Could "unknown number of soldiers" or similar be added in lieu of actual numbers? Oherik (talk) 07:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Oherik, you make a good point. I added a bit more detail in the infobox. Do you think this is ok now? Renata (talk) 17:33, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Renata, that does make it more clear. Oherik (talk) 17:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)