Misplaced Pages

:Featured article candidates/Kaunas Fortress/archive1: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:33, 29 September 2008 editPiotrus (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Event coordinators, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers285,769 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit Revision as of 17:30, 29 September 2008 edit undoPiotrus (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Event coordinators, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers285,769 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 47: Line 47:
:::I removed dead links, last two works now. ] (]) 21:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC) :::I removed dead links, last two works now. ] (]) 21:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


*'''Object'''. results is lack of neutrality and incomplete coverage.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 15:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC) *<s>'''Object'''. results is lack of neutrality and incomplete coverage.</s>--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 15:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
:*Objection withdrawn, pending stability of .--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 17:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:30, 29 September 2008

Kaunas Fortress

Nominator(s): M.K. (talk)
Toolbox

Kaunas Fortress is already a good article, it also got an A-class rating from military department. Article is topical, as it covers the history of the largest and best preserved originally Russian Empire's fortress. Article is written using newest academic research on the subject, richly illustrated with pictures, both contemporary and present, article is stable and comprehensive. I think article meets all FA criteria. M.K. (talk) 12:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Support as nominator, M.K. (talk) 12:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
As the principle contributor and nominator, your support is assumed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The writing needs ironing out throughout: here are examples of why, just from the top.

  • The link to redoubt is good, but it's a very unusual term and our readers shouldn't have to divert, as I did, to learn the basic meaning; could you gloss it in a brief phrase? Are we meant to know about some grading hierarchy for fortress? I'm mysified.
  • "... obsolete; after , it was used only for c p and as a g." (Two different ideas are currently blurred into the one sentence.)
  • The "Some ..." sentence: there are two "ands" in it, so insert a comma after the first one.
  • Infobox: what does "from 19th century end" mean? And why just "1915"?
  • No comma after "Vilnius" (the use of commas throughout clearly needs an audit).
  • Vague and a bit wordy: "During the course of the city's history"—why not give us a century range?
  • Why is the growth of the city suddenly relevant, and stuck at the end of the para? Is it population or economic or what? Tony

(talk) 15:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Note that I was unable to check the non-English sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Regarding dead links - I will investigate them. M.K. (talk) 21:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I removed dead links, last two works now. M.K. (talk) 21:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)