Revision as of 08:48, 31 January 2007 editHalibutt (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers34,067 edits →Name?← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 01:35, 12 March 2024 edit undoOpalYosutebito (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers155,079 editsm →top: fixing/removing unknown parameters across Misplaced Pages using AutoWikiBrowserTag: AWB | ||
(431 intermediate revisions by 44 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Article history | |||
{{WPMILHIST | |||
|action1=WPR | |||
|class=B | |||
|action1date=04:20, 11 April 2007 | |||
|priority=mid | |||
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Vilna offensive | |||
|Polish-task-force=yes | |||
|action1result=reviewed | |||
|WWI-task-force=yes | |||
|action1oldid=121863652 | |||
|Russian-task-force=yes | |||
}} | |||
{| class="messagebox standard-talk" | |||
|- | |||
|] | |||
|An entry from '''{{PAGENAME}}''' appeared on Misplaced Pages's ] in the ''']''' column on ], ]. | |||
|] | |||
|} | |||
|action2=GAN | |||
|action2date=22 May 2007 | |||
|action2result=not listed | |||
|action2oldid=132775982 | |||
|action3=GAN | |||
== Name == | |||
|action3date=19:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
Shouldn't this be under ]?--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 22:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
|action3link=Talk:Vilna offensive/GA1 | |||
:Who are you asking this question to, Piotrus? didn't you create the article and the title? ] 23:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
|action3result=listed | |||
|action3oldid=220821975 | |||
|currentstatus=GA | |||
==Name?== | |||
|topic=War | |||
The name Wilno is not historically correct. Not in 1919, anyway. Perhaps Lysy can get Piotrus (the author), or Halibutt the referee on "historical" names to change this. ] 01:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
|dyk1date=5 November 2006|dyk1entry=...that the ''']''' set the stage for the future ] and ]s? | |||
|otd1date=2011-04-16|otd1oldid=424312764 | |||
|otd2date=2012-04-16|otd2oldid=487706048 | |||
|otd3date=2019-04-16|otd3oldid=892750079 | |||
}} | |||
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA| | |||
{{WikiProject Military history | |||
|class=GA | |||
|B-Class-1=yes | |||
<!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> | |||
|B-Class-2=yes | |||
<!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> | |||
|B-Class-3=yes | |||
<!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> | |||
|B-Class-4=yes | |||
<!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> | |||
|B-Class-5=yes | |||
|Polish-task-force=yes|WWI-task-force=yes|Russian-task-force=yes}} | |||
{{WikiProject Lithuania|importance=Mid|dyk=yes|comments=}} | |||
{{WikiProject Soviet Union|importance=Low|hist=yes|mil=yes|rus=yes|rus-importance=low}} | |||
{{WikiProject Poland|importance=low}} | |||
}} | |||
:Which is the historically correct name then ? --]<sup>]</sup> 01:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
::Are you asking me personally, or rhetorically, I thought Halibutt is the final say on these matters, isn't he? ] 01:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
:You challenged it, you might want to explain yourself now. --]<sup>]</sup> 01:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
::O.K., in 1919, the name used for Paris in the English language was not Paryż, nor was the historical capital of Lithuania called Wilno. ] 03:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::Do go on - I wonder after how many proddings you will answer your own 'rethorical' question... :) --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 04:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
{{Archive box|search=yes| | |||
::::Knowing something is incorrect, doesn't require knowing the correct answer, if one is looking for the correct answer. How about Wilnius? Now back to my questions. I'll try again. Is the title of this article, '''original research'''? And what is the basis for using the Polish name for this historically Lithuanian city during '''this time period''' on English Misplaced Pages? The Polish annexation took place in 1922. ] 01:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
* ] <small>(2006–2007)</small> | |||
::And the Lithuanian annexation took place in 1991. So..? | |||
}} | |||
:: As to the source for ''Operation Wilno'', there are plenty, just google for ''operacja wileńska'' and you're there. If you want some specific source, check some serious publications, like for instance the preface to: Marek Tarczyński (1998): ''Bitwa niemeńska 29 VIII - 18 X 1920: dokumenty operacyjne''. Warsaw: RYTM. ISBN 83867893056. Or Grzegorz Łukowski (1994): ''Walka Rzeczpospolitej o kresy północno-wschodnie, 1918-1920. Polityka i dzialania militarne''. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Universytetu Adama Mickiewicza. ISBN 83-232-0614-7. ''<font color="#901">//</font>'']] 08:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
__TOC__ | |||
{{Clear}} | |||
==Fair use rationale for Image:Polish army in Wilno 1919.jpg== | |||
==Title== | |||
] | |||
''']''' is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under ] but there is no ] as to why its use in '''this''' Misplaced Pages article constitutes fair use. In addition to the ], you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with ]. | |||
Please go to ] and edit it to include a ]. Using one of the templates at ] is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page. | |||
Is there some militarily historic verification of this article's title, namely ''Operation Wilno?'' Is there some evidence that this action as portrayed in this article, was under a military code name, that equates to the title "Operation Wilno," created by the Polish military? It has an original research "ring" to it. ] 05:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on ]. If you have any questions please ask them at the ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Missing rationale2 --> | |||
] (]) 08:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
==Tagging== | |||
Certain croup of polish volunteers insisting that tag should be removed because, there is ''no ongoing discussion''. May I ask which WP official policy suggest and states that unsolved arguments stated previously and previuos discussion becomes invalid after some time? ] (]) 13:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
M.K, if you have issues with the article, please state them specifically. This will help us understand what your problem is. --]<sup>]</sup> 19:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
:Am I understand correctly, you failed to present any rationale with regards of official WP policies, which support that older unsolved arguments and discussion becomes invalid? I will wait for a while to receive more precise answer. ] (]) 15:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
::Currently it is you who have failed to present any arguments. Tags require ''rationale'', which is quite visibly lacking here. Removal of tags without rationale is perfectly in line with our policies.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 16:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
== Much turmoil == | |||
What is the intended meaning of this sentence in the lead: ''In the aftermath, the Vilna offensive would cause much turmoil on the political scene in Poland and abroad.'' --]<sup>]</sup> 08:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
:What is unclear about it? It was covered, discussed and criticized (and supported) by many for various reasons.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 18:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
It's very vague and it's only in the lead. I do not see the topic being discussed in the article's body. If it's important for the article, it should be explained in more detail. If it's not, why put such sentence in the summary only ? --]<sup>]</sup> 19:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
:It was supposed to describe the aftermath section. Feel free to adjust it if you feel it sounds strange.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 19:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
{{Talk:Vilna offensive/GA1}} | |||
==References== | |||
Hi, just noticed something you might want to address. The inline citations cite Davies, but there are two books by Davies in the references section. It might be a good idea to explain in the inline citation which one you mean.--] (]) 15:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
:Unless otherwise noted, they refer to his WERS monography on the PSWar.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 16:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
Btw, I've added a new map but it doesn't want to go above the infobox, even through we have space on the left... --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 23:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
== Wrong reference to Prussia Empire? == | |||
One reads in the article following: "...The leader of the Polish forces, Józef Piłsudski, discerned an opportunity for regaining territories that were once the part of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, and since then were the part of the Prussia Empire, shaken by the 1917 Revolution and the ongoing Russian Civil War..." -- Vilnius, however, was never a part of Prussia Empire and there was no such thing as Prussia Empire at all. I think the reference here is made to Russian Empire. <small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 08:48, 2 July 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
Latest revision as of 01:35, 12 March 2024
Vilna offensive 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 rated GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Archives |
|
Fair use rationale for Image:Polish army in Wilno 1919.jpg
Image:Polish army in Wilno 1919.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Misplaced Pages article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 08:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Tagging
Certain croup of polish volunteers insisting that tag should be removed because, there is no ongoing discussion. May I ask which WP official policy suggest and states that unsolved arguments stated previously and previuos discussion becomes invalid after some time? M.K. (talk) 13:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
M.K, if you have issues with the article, please state them specifically. This will help us understand what your problem is. --Lysy 19:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Am I understand correctly, you failed to present any rationale with regards of official WP policies, which support previuos edits that older unsolved arguments and discussion becomes invalid? I will wait for a while to receive more precise answer. M.K. (talk) 15:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Currently it is you who have failed to present any arguments. Tags require rationale, which is quite visibly lacking here. Removal of tags without rationale is perfectly in line with our policies.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Much turmoil
What is the intended meaning of this sentence in the lead: In the aftermath, the Vilna offensive would cause much turmoil on the political scene in Poland and abroad. --Lysy 08:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- What is unclear about it? It was covered, discussed and criticized (and supported) by many for various reasons.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
It's very vague and it's only in the lead. I do not see the topic being discussed in the article's body. If it's important for the article, it should be explained in more detail. If it's not, why put such sentence in the summary only ? --Lysy 19:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- It was supposed to describe the aftermath section. Feel free to adjust it if you feel it sounds strange.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
GA Review
1. Well written?: Fail Pass
1.1 Prose
Although generally good, I feel that the entire article could benefit from a copyedit. If you wish, I can do this myself (I already copyedited the section that had the "please copyedit" tag on it, so I'm off to a start). Of particular note:
There's quite a bit of information that relies on parentheses (which tends to disrupt the flow of the article). Would it be possible to work the text in the parentheses into the article itself without that disruption? For example:"After three days of street fighting (April 19-21)" could be reworded as "After three days of street fighting from April 19-21""The forces moving on Vilna included the cavalry group of Colonel Władysław Belina-Prażmowski (nine squadrons supported by a light battery of horse artillery, about 800 men) and infantry under General Edward Rydz-Śmigły (three battalions of the Polish 1st Legions Infantry Division with two batteries of heavy artillery, about 2,500 men)." should probably be reworded to:"The forces moving on Vilna included the cavalry grou pf Colonel Wladyslaw Belina-Prazmowski, composed of 800 men in nine cavalry squadrons and a battery of horse artillery; and infantry under General Edward Rydz-Smigly, his force containing 2,500 men in three battalions of the Polish 1st Legions Infantry Division and two batteries of heavy artillery."
- Generally, military ranks shouldn't be shortened to Col. Gen. Luit.-Gen. etc. Although us military history junkies (you and I included) will know what that means, someone coming to the page to locate information on the offensive probably won't. It just helps to make the page as clear as possible
- Good point. I found and expanded two col.'s and one lt.'s :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
*In the section Jewish Deaths, you say that "dozens of people connected with Litbel were arrested, and some were executed". then, in the Soviet counteroffensive section, you state "The Polish victory infuriated the Soviets, leading to dozens of arrests and several executions among those connected to Litbel". I'd suggest removing one of these to avoid the redundancy of it.
- Actually, this is not a redundancy: in Jewish deaths, we are discussing executions by Poles (who were executing Soviet symphatisers); in Soviet section - executions made by the Soviets (who were executing their own scapegoats).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- Oh. Ok, don't know why I didn't catch that before. Cam (Chat) 19:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
for those page viewers who don't know where Vilna is, it may help to expand upon where exactly Vilna is located in Poland/Lithania. Although you and I both know where Vilnius is located, most people won't.
1.2 MoS
- There are a couple issues concerning the formating of date wikilinks. Most notably:
2. Factually accurate?: Minor Fail Pass
- Very well cited. However...
Looking through the article history, there seems to be some disagreement concerning what some of the sources said about certain events or statistics. To be on the safe-side, I'd double-check the errors to ensure that they are errors.
"*Well, I can try to answer specific questions, but as far as I remember (it was some time ago that I wrote this article), the sources used were reliable... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
3. Broad in coverage?: Pass
- coverage is quite broad and comprehensive. No objections.
4. Neutral point of view?: Pass
5. Article stability? Pass
- Although there has been a lot of editing lately, none of it appears to be in the form of edit-warring. As such, this section is passed.
6. Images?: Pass with comment
- The maps check out ok for copyrights. However, I'd be interested to see whether there is a Polish Public-Domain template in place for use in the copyright for the infobox image.
As such, I have placed this article On Hold. Although (technically), it says "one week until pass/fail" I feel that some common sense has to be applied when reviewing GA-Articles. Provided that progress is made, I won't be failing this article any time soon. If you have questions, feel free to contact me on My Talk Page. All the best, Cam (Chat) 05:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- Passing GA...Cam (Chat) 19:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- Congratulations! —PētersV (talk) 22:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- Passing GA...Cam (Chat) 19:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
References
Hi, just noticed something you might want to address. The inline citations cite Davies, but there are two books by Davies in the references section. It might be a good idea to explain in the inline citation which one you mean.--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Unless otherwise noted, they refer to his WERS monography on the PSWar.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Btw, I've added a new map but it doesn't want to go above the infobox, even through we have space on the left... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Wrong reference to Prussia Empire?
One reads in the article following: "...The leader of the Polish forces, Józef Piłsudski, discerned an opportunity for regaining territories that were once the part of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, and since then were the part of the Prussia Empire, shaken by the 1917 Revolution and the ongoing Russian Civil War..." -- Vilnius, however, was never a part of Prussia Empire and there was no such thing as Prussia Empire at all. I think the reference here is made to Russian Empire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.139.88.253 (talk) 08:48, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Categories:- Misplaced Pages good articles
- Warfare good articles
- Misplaced Pages Did you know articles that are good articles
- GA-Class military history articles
- GA-Class European military history articles
- European military history task force articles
- GA-Class Polish military history articles
- Polish military history task force articles
- GA-Class Russian, Soviet and CIS military history articles
- Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force articles
- GA-Class World War I articles
- World War I task force articles
- GA-Class Lithuania articles
- Mid-importance Lithuania articles
- Lithuania Did you know articles
- GA-Class Soviet Union articles
- Low-importance Soviet Union articles
- GA-Class Russia articles
- Low-importance Russia articles
- Low-importance GA-Class Russia articles
- WikiProject Russia articles
- GA-Class Russia (history) articles
- History of Russia task force articles
- WikiProject Soviet Union articles
- GA-Class Poland articles
- Low-importance Poland articles
- WikiProject Poland articles