Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Livonian War/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 11:49, 1 June 2011 [1].

Livonian War

[edit]

Livonian War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second nomination of Livonian War to FA status. [Edit: Please note this FAC forms part of my entry to the WikiCup, as on talk.] The last time, the dare-I-say barrage of faults - many minor, some not - was just too much to be going on with. So I put it up for A class review at MILHIST, where it went largely without comment (and thus failed); a second A-class review is currently open with two-and-a-half supports. It remains to be seen whether that will pass, but there have been no opposes at any point. I now feel the article is ready to be nominated again. Reasons like copyediting have now been covered, and so won't obscure other problems, or indeed potential support for FA status.

Oh, one thing: I had a go at ALT text for some of it, but for the complicated maps in the article it's somewhat beyond me. The ones I've done probably need improving as well, if someone wants to.Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: alt text is not currently part of the FA criteria. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Ivan IV had introduced a new strategy whereby he relied on tens of thousands of native troops, cossacks and tartars instead of a few thousand skilled troops and mercenaries, as was the practice of his adversaries." - source?
Done. (Thank heavens for 'snippet view'!). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:15, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No citations to Karamzin 2003
Is this a problem? It can be deleted if so, but could potentially be helpful to the reader.
Maybe put it in a "General sources" or "Further reading" section?
  • Publisher for Russow?
It doesn't have a publisher (in reality), it's from 1578. I don't believe Frost mentions which version he's using. Frost is the primary citation, so I question whether a full citation for Russow is possible, or indeed useful.
  • Bain 1971: title should be italicized, series should not
Done, by changing the field being used.
  • Be consistent in how foreign-language sources are notated, and don't double-notate
In the previous nomination, Piotrus suggested the double-notation. Is there a guideline that could be applied to save an argument?
Not that I know of, it just seems redundant. What was his reasoning for including it? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(On the last point.) Do you have any particular concerns? I've filled the one source without a location field; in each case, the town or city is listed, with the exception of "Jefferson, North Carolina", a much smaller place (pop. 1,422 in 2010). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For example, Frost lists only "New Jersey" as place of publication, and Yale University Press is not in a town called Yale. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How silly of me. Now corrected. To avoid quadruple layering the points above: Piotrus' rationale was "I think both should be used. The |language [field] is better for machine searching, but de icon is more visible to the human reader." I personally have no preference. I've also moved Karamzin to a "Further reading" section, seemed most appropriate. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The text still needs some work, which perhaps will be sorted out during the A-class review. My feeling is that it would have been wiser to let the A-class review finish, but here are a few examples of the kinds of things I think need some work: — Malleus Fatuorum 14:15, 29 May 2011 — continues after insertion below

  • "... they may have symbolic of greater Swedish aspirations in the region".
Changed.
  • "Similarly, he improved an already effective artillery system, and also recruited cossacks". Why "and also" rather than just "and"?
Removed, it's a personal thing of mine.
  • "Unfavourable conditions for Sweden led to a series of future conflicts ...". Clearly "future" is redundant.
Removed.
  • "No agreement was forthcoming, and after a ten-day break in negotiations during which time various Russian meetings were held (including the zemsky sobor, the Assembly of the Land) to discuss the issues at stake." After the break then what?
Changed.
  • "In the ensuing Battle of Wenden, Russian casualties were severe, and armaments and horses captured leaving Ivan IV with his first time serious defeat in Livonia.
Changed.
  • "Similarly, he improved an already effective artillery system, and also recruited cossacks". Another "and also".
Identical to the first point about "And also". (i.e. changed.)
  • "In 1581, the force besieged Pskov, a well-fortified and heavily defended fortress but with financial support from the Polish parliament failing ...". That last bit doesn't match what went before.
Hope I've cleared that up, although I wasn't quite sure what you meant.
  • "the Polish King and grand duke of Lithuania Sigismund III ...". Why is "King" capitalised but "grand duke" isn't?
Changed, perhaps someone can confirm that capitalisation is correct in these instances. (The phrase is used twice.)
  • "Throughout 1561, a Russo-Lithuanian truce was respected by both sides with a scheduled expiration date of 1562." This is saying that both sided had a scheduled expiration(!) date of 1562, not that the treaty would expire in 1562.
Changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grandiose (talk • contribs) 14:54, 29 May 2011

Malleus Fatuorum 14:15, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) (in ignorance of SG's point below.) I've acted on these (although you're welcome to check they answer the points, of course), but your top message suggests there may be more. Through examination of this type was not forthcoming at ACR – where the article has spent 7 weeks – and I have/had little suspicion that it would soon. The article was copy-edited by the guild, but can be again if reviewers believe there are points to be made. At the moment, I believe posting them here may be sufficient. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved, moved to talk. Spotcheck for close paraphrasing and source compliance will be needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on a fix, as a compromise. Something like (online) to each the references, I think. I can't imagine there will be many objections to that. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just make sure to link pages, not just books. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which of the FA criteria mandate links to transient Google Books links, that often work differently depending on which part of the world you live in? Malleus Fatuorum 21:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That they don't work in some parts of the world is not my concern (even through often I live in those parts). Nor do I care that some occasionally break down as Google revises copyright status or such. Most of them work, and they work for majority of editors and readers. The usefulness is obvious, and if FA criteria don't reflect them, they should - and I have my right to request that. (This reminds me of few years back when I was arguing in favor of inline cites...). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Proposals to change the FA criteria should be made at WT:WIAFA (or possibly (WT:FAC), where you're welcome to raise the issue. However, GBooks links are not currently mandated by the FA criteria, so opposing due to their absence is not considered actionable; if that is your only reason for objecting to this article's promotion, I would strongly urge you to withdraw your objection. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a valid oppose-- the issue has been well discussed at WT:FAC archives. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:27, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I expect that the bureaucratic mentality will disregard my vote. I am relying on the nominator's desire to improve the article to heed up my request, and do what's best for the article. PS. Proven correct during edit conflict... :> PPS. I wouldn't be making this into an issue here if not for the fact that some GBooks page links were present in the article but were removed by the nominator, which IIRC is against even the current imperfect consensus on that issue... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Unindent.) I dispute my "removal" of them, but have otherwise complied. It is my opinion that such a change, most importantly, cannot be considered detrimental to the article. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - aside from the copy editing, have other concerns - about neutrality and comprehensiveness, such as the ones raised by Renata - been addressed since last FAR? I see that a couple of her bullet points have been dealt with, but vast majority haven't and I don't see much in edit history of the article to indicate that the other ones were dealt with as well (maybe I'm missing it).Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:07, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad to know that Renata is back, but there has not been a FAR (Featured Article Review); this is FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look into it, but that'll be tomorrow. (I think you mean FAC, by the way, a mistake I've made before.) Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You should not have to "look into it"; issues from previous FACs are supposed to be resolved prior to nomination, and the FAC instructions say that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately, my choice of words was merely politeness. I had only a little time, and although I do not believe Renata's comments to still be true, I felt dismissing them in only a couple of sentences would not have done the seriousness of the complaints justice. All of the bulleted points were dealt with following the withdrawal of the FAC, the couple of "completeness" ones will be justified shortly. Renata continues with "the articles misses some very important points (like the fact that Sigismund Augustus not merely supported, but initiated the whole mess with Wilhelm von Brandenburg, the extremely complicated political dynamic between the four countries, etc. -- who supported who and why -- while zooming in on a couple negotiation attempts)." I believe this version is appropriate as indicative of the article at the time. Since then, various small but significant additions and reductions have been made. Additional details have generally been to enhance the breadth of coverage (unfortunately, after some thought, there is no easy way for me to demonstrate this; however, if you have WikiEdDiff (or similar) then perhaps that would make this combined then/now diff workable); reductions have been made to the negotiation attempts Renata describes. (For example, the first paragraph of the "Russian war with Sweden" paragraph has been reduced from around 350 words to around 220, if one excludes the first two sentences of today's version, since they are new material.) With reference to the four-power negotiations, several things have been added. For example, Livonia's appeal to Polish-Lithuania (P-L); Russian efforts to gain control of the P-L throne; P-L's Augsburg Confession to Livonia; the Treaty of Dorpat; the Russian-Swedish truce of 1565; Danish-Swedish context (Kalmar Union, Great Northern War); Russian Swedish truce of 1575; some information on the control of Hapsal, Leal and Lode; the 1580 period of Swedish-Russian war has been elaborated upon; an augmentation of Swedish-Russian negotiations related to the Treaty of Plussa, and some slight additions to the post-conflict "context" as it were. I therefore feel justified in bringing this to FAC again. (If you think I've missed something, bring it up, I apologise in advance if that is the case, I but I don't believe it is.) Sorry if this is a little long reply, but Renata's comments were originally the single largest reason I withdrew the review of the article, and thus there has been some thought on the subject since. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the point about neutrality, this was mainly a point of Piotrus, and was discussed between the last FAC and this one, and I therefore suspect it is no longer an issue. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right. My remaining issue the lack/removal of Google Book page links (which, sadly, to some is a non-issue). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've done the 18 references whose Google books pages are visible. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you (and by "some" above I did not mean you). Please note that more are visible than just those. For example, here is Frost 2000, p. 2. Keep up the good work! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, that link doesn't go (for me, at least) to the book or page in question. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This article isn't ready, and the addition of a couple of dozen spam links has hardly improved matters. It really does need the attention of a decent copyeditor, one who looks at the overall story being told, not just the grammar and punctuation of individual sentences. I believe that this article as currently constructed fails the 1a FA criterion, and I'll offer a few examples of why:

  • "The ensuing Danzig War of 1577 ended when Batory conceded further autonomous rights to the city in turn for a payment of 200,000 zloty." Presumably that should be "in return for a payment".
Changed.Grandiose
  • "Poland also claimed the whole of Livonia, without acceptance of Swedish lands." What does "without acceptance of Swedish lands" mean?
Changed, I believe that is now clearer.Grandiose
  • "Maximilan's death in October 1576 prevented the conflict from growing any further." In what way does a conflict "grow", as opposed to spread, or intensify?
Reworded, it now reads "escalated". The phrasing of the source is not clear whether scope, intensity or something else is intended (it uses the phrase "[prevented a] major war").Grandiose
  • "The failure of the Swedish siege of Narva in 1579 led to Pontus de la Gardie replacing Henrik Klasson Horn as commander-in-chief". No, it led to Pontus de la Gardie's replacement as commander-in-chief, not replacing.
Although Wikipedia is somewhat unclear, the source (whose ref I have moved to this sentence also, it was at the end of the next clause) is clear this is when he becomes Commander-in-Chief. However, ti didn't explicitly say this is what Horn held, so I've removed it. There could be a translation issue on the ranks here. Grandiose
  • "... the Russo-Swedish truce was later extended until 1590." It could hardly have been extended earlier.
I used the word "later" to clarify that it was made first, then extended sometime after. Of course, that is the implication without the word "later", but I thought it was better said than implied.
  • "This was a humiliation for the Tsar, in part because he requested the truce in the first place." Rather than in the second, third or fourth place? What is "in the first place" supposed to be telling us?
Removed.Grandiose
  • "In 1590, the Russo-Swedish truce of Plussa expired and fighting resumed while the ensuing Russo-Swedish War of 1590–5 ended with the Treaty of Teusina (Tyavzino, Tyavzin), under which Sweden had to cede Ingria and Kexholm to Russia." So how does that work exactly? Fighting resumed in 1590 while a treaty was ratified five years later?
It's what our article on "while" calls a "contrastive sense". Is it sufficiently unclear? As you say, a concurrent-events sense would seem impossible.Grandiose
  • "During the same period, the Swedish–Polish alliance began to crumble". Which period is this? When the fighting resumed or when the treaty was signed?
Probably both, but I've removed it as vague and unnecessary to the meaning.Grandiose
  • "Local nobles turned to Charles for protection in 1600 when the conflict spread to Livonia where Sigismund had tried to incorporate Swedish Estonia into the Duchy of Livonia." Needs some punctuation.
Added a comma after "Livonia".Grandiose
  • "At the same time, Russia was embroiled in civil war over the vacant Russian throne ("Time of Troubles") where none of the many claimants had prevailed." The word "where" signifies a place; what is the place that none of the claimants had prevailed in?
Changed to "when".Grandiose
  • "... several Livonian towns were captured, but only Pernau remained after a Polish–Lithuanian counter-offensive". Remained where? Where did the others dash off to?
Clarified.Grandiose

Malleus Fatuorum 00:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm putting the article up for a second copyedit, I think, given your suggestion there are further points to be made. (This remains a cup nomination, which after you comments, I thought I'd mention – if you have changed your mind about reviewing it, I'm sorry for the suggestion you may not have done; however, I thought I'd make sure this wasn't by mistake.) Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd already looked through it, so I thought I might as well offer my opinion. Malleus Fatuorum 16:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Spotcheck—issues my first random spotcheck of Elliot 2000 p. 14 resulted in this "Sweden hoped to establish itself on the eastern side of the Baltic, which was dominated by Denmark who therefore controlled trade with Russia. This helped to precipitate the Northern Seven Years' War" being unacceptably close paraphrase. I then extensively spotchecked Roberts 1968 to my dissatisfaction. Roberts 1968 p 209 was clear. Roberts 1968, p. 255 was close paraphrase. 74d Roberts 1968 p. 258 does not support its assertion (you mean p.258–259). Roberts 1968 p. 260 was uncheckable due to preview. Roberts 1968 p. 263 is clear. fn 92b doesn't support assertion. 92e "Russia would surrender all areas in Livonia it still held" appears close paraphrase due to sentence order and "all areas in Livonia", reconstruct sentence. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've altered everything according. Elliot #14 was bad, and it certainly isn't repeated like that elsewhere. Your edit summary suggested that close paraphrasing was endemic, and although I don't believe it is, I will be combing all the sources I have available to ensure this. Did you check any other sources (save me doing this myself)? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 08:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, are there any helpful pages about this? I've dealt with close paraphrasing before, but with the exception of Elliott, the issues you raise seem less apparent than the examples at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 08:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You need to walk the line between avoiding original research, and excellent prose. Often singular adjectival expressions, such as "brilliant prose," are irreplaceable without losing meaning—and this is not necessarily close paraphrasing. Where a unique expression of short length is the only way to express the fact or concept, it is not paraphrasing to do so (perhaps, "Lenin wore a goatee beard" is a simple example, but even here, we can replace the verb, to "kept"). However, I strongly suggest avoiding: identical verbs, identical adjectival or adverbal expressions, identical clause order in multiple clause sentences, and where it doesn't excessively introduce the passive voice, reordering the sentence entirely. The advice on WP:Close paraphrasing of "The right way to use this source would be to read it, read other sources about cats, internalize the information, and then write original content without looking at the structure of the sources" is excellent writing advice. I noticed in your use of Roberts 1968 that you often noted as facts in a single sentence, facts that originally appears in a single sentence in Roberts 1968. This occurred even when you cut down the size of the sentence through removal of redundant clauses.
I can accept that Elliot 2000 may have been a simple authorial mistake; but, the method of using Roberts, and the instances of paraphrase throughout of Roberts, suggests to me that you may need to take the article away and check your citations exhaustively. I only tested Elliot 2000 and Roberts 1968 as it is a painstaking task; and, after investigating Roberts 1968 there was enough evidence of a tendency to make this opposable. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Livonian_War/archive2&oldid=1088118164"