Talk:Jan Karol Chodkiewicz/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Tomobe03 (talk · contribs) 12:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC) I'll review this article shortly.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Sourcing:

  • The only possible sourcing issue in the article is the ancestry tree. Could you provide a source for that, or point me to an appropriate policy dealing with such information - I looked for one but found none?--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Good point. I am not familiar with a policy, but I agree a ref is needed. I found one website ([1]), reliability is problematic (seems like a website is maintained by a one person amateur). Another website I found is non-free... and the editor who added the section is inactive since 2008. I left him a message but I don't expect much; in a few days I guess - giving him the AGF snowflake chance of becoming active - I'll just have to move that section here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Images:

MOS:

  • There is a wikilink pointing to disambiguating page Belsky. Please point it to an appropriate article.
  • External links are fine (no action required)
  • Duplicate link to Stanisław Żółkiewski need be removed per WP:OVERLINK.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
  • There is at least one easter egg in the article: The "Polish aristocratic family" is linked to Zborowski family. Per WP:EGG I suggest changing the linked text to "Zborowski family". Please remedy any other similar instances in the article.--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Since Dorpat and Tartu are the same, I suggest changing Dorpat (Tartu) to Dorpat (modern-day Tartu) or something along those lines. In addition, there's no need to link both, since the two point to the same article.
  • In famous heavy hussars - "famous" should be clarified (why were they famous and how is that relevant for the topic) and supported by sources directly - otherwise that word should be removed per WP:PEACOCK.
  • In that vein, see if words like "some" and "many" are used redundantly. For instance in ... was unpopular among many Lithuanian magnates... I cannot really tell what purpose does the "many" serve. Being unpopular implies "unpopular by many (or most)". In this way it appears that the statement is vague and uncertain. I think simple removal of the word "many" would improve the situation.
  • Continuing from the previous point, in case of Chodkiewicz fought some inconclusive battles against the Muscovites... "some" is likewise redundant and has the same impact as "many" in the previous point.
  • The article employs two date formats eg: 11 October 1617 and October 14, 1621. Please make the format consistent throughout the article per WP:DATESNO.

Prose:

  • I'd recommend splitting He gained military experience in the fight against the rebellious Cossacks during the Severyn Nalyvaiko uprising under Field Crown Hetman Stanisław Żółkiewski, in which he participated in the Battle of Kaniów on April 14, 1596, and in the siege of the Cossack tabor near Lubny. in two sentences.
  • I suspect there were more than just generals defeated in ... and defeated the Swedish generals ... Perhaps "Swedish troops" or "Swedish army" or something else would serve the purpose better. If, on the other hand, there is info which generals exactly, add those names.
  • "Latvia" is not needed in (modern Salaspils, Latvia).
  • While not that unclear, sentence An army of 160,000 Turks and 60,000 Tatars led by Sultan Osman II in person advanced on the Polish frontier, toward the Commonwealth forces, numbering about 70,000, half of them Cossacks, under Petro Konashevych-Sahaidachny). would probably read better if it were broken in two.

Well, this is about it. All the items specified should be fairly simple to address. Nice article, cheers!--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Two more things - I assume the "Bibliography" is meant as a Further reading section. If so it should follow references and precede external links section per WP:ORDER and should be formatted as all other cites in the article. Also, please add ISBN or OCLC parameters to book cites if at all available.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Sorry. this slipped my mind. I'll try to address this soon (traveling this week). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:25, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
No rush.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
I've done some formatting to those sections, please let me know if this is better now. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
All but a couple of issues done - please format the items in "Reference" just like those in the "Further reading", using {{cite book}} templates and add OCLC numbers for the books. The numbers can be found even for very old editions where there are no ISBNs (for instance here.--Tomobe03 (talk) 07:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
I have done so for some books, but for the other it's a total mess. Consider the myriad entries worldcat has for this single work: [2]. For [3], we just have three, would you like to roll a d6/2 and chose one number? Same for tome 3 of PSB, I see at least 3 valid entries on worldcat for it ([4]). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Ok, don't sweat it then. What is the difference between references 6 and 7? Did you mean to point one of those at another page number?--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Yep, copy and paste error, fixed now, thanks for noticing! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Right. I trust everything's good to go now.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)