Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kaunas Fortress/archive1

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 User:SandyGeorgia 00:25, 11 October 2008 [1].

Kaunas Fortress[edit]

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


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)[reply]

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

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.
    • Done. Removed redoubt. Re "first-class", it's used by at least two of our sources, but I can't find any more info on the grading system; could take it out. Novickas (talk) 13:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... obsolete; after [year], 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"?
    • Done. Changed to 1882 - present; construction started then, still being used by LT army. Novickas (talk) 13:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No comma after "Vilnius" (the use of commas throughout clearly needs an audit).
    • Done. Hmm, we disagree, but if you feel strongly, will remove it. Novickas (talk) 13:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

    • Done. Added more detail - regional trading center, railway, canal, etc.; goes to general significance of the city. Novickas (talk) 13:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I asked another contributor to fix the style. M.K. (talk) 21:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
Done. Regarding dead links - I will investigate them. M.K. (talk) 21:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I removed dead links, last two works now. M.K. (talk) 21:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Censorship? Really? Learn a proper ethical way of conduct. M.K. (talk) 08:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done regarding ndashes.M.K. (talk) 12:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clarify. Could you clarify that you want by saying Also a lot of your websites have dates that the content was put in at the bottom, but you did not put it in the ref? M.K. (talk) 12:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)P.S. If you had in mind "|date=" I added it now.[reply]
Everything here seems to be fine now. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 02:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clarify. I failed to understand what you suggesting by why is pp used for single dates, please elaborate. M.K. (talk) 11:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the footnotes section you used p. for single pages and pp. for multiple pages, but in the general book section, you used pp. for single pages. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 02:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In general section presented a total number of pages available in specific books. Should we use just a p. then speaking and about total pages in books? M.K. (talk) 11:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support - I support this page now pending what Sandy may feel about the position of the table (i.e. if it is acceptable under accessibility. If not, it can be moved to the bottom of the section, yes?). Neutral pending work on table and images Oppose There are multiple problems with the positions of images and sandwiching of text. The chart "Fortress construction" sticks out and takes away from the article. There are many images, but I can't tell which ones are vital and which ones are not. Perhaps limit it to one per section for the whole article? I'm sorry. Images and formatting are a big thing for me and it seems cluttered with them at this moment. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps table should have hide/un-hide option in order to not stick out? M.K. (talk) 12:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The hide function causes even greater problems in the long run. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, should I remove the table ? M.K. (talk) 13:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you turn the dates into a simple set of sentences reading ___, ____, and ____ were created ___ year? That table seems to be the main formatting problem. If it is fixed I will give the article another look over. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I will do my best, hope some other contributors will help me too. M.K. (talk) 20:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to oppose convertion into prose as prose will be awkward, listy, hard to read, and much less informative. I am also opposed imposing your own personal formatting preferences. I understand desire to reduce image clutter, but I do not understand opposition to the table: it is the shortest, easiest, and most informative way to present this kind of information. Renata (talk) 13:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Renata, text is not supposed to be "sandwiched" between two images, which includes and image and a table. Sometime its allowable, however, with all of the images, this instance causes a major problem that needs to be addressed. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Working on table issues now, M.K. (talk) 22:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ottava Rima, please investigate new table implemented in the main space, M.K. (talk) 12:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spot-check—the lead doesn't fill me with confidence, and after all this time ...

  • "After World War I, the fortress' military importance declined as advances in weaponry rendered it increasingly obsolete. It was used by various civil institutions and as a garrison." The fortress' – is this the correct possessive form? "was used"—orient me as to the chronology of this statement. "It was subsequently"? Until when?
  • "eleventh", then in "Background" we see "13th"; where's your boundary. Please see MOSNUM.
  • "During World War II, parts of the fortress complex were used by the governments of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union for detention, interrogation, and execution. About 50,000 people were executed there, including 15,800 victims of the Holocaust." What, both governments at the same time? Or at different times? I'm totally confused. And, just checking, you do mean that each government perpetrated each of the three crimes? Why the repetition (execution/executed)? "... and the Soviet Union for detention, and interrogation, and about 50,000 people were executed there, including 15,800 victims of the Holocaust."

Further down, at random:

  • " The Augustow Canal, completed in 1832, linked the Nemunas to the Black Sea, and a rail line linking Saint Petersburg, Warsaw, and Germany via Kaunas was completed in 1861; it was part of a limited network of western Russian railways." I think you need "in 1861 as part of". It's a long sentence, but removes the problem of "it".
  • Clunky sentence: "In order to control the region, attackers would need to first neutralize Kaunas." Remove "In order". "would first need to".
  • "After several delays, on July 7, 1879 Tsar Alexander II issued an edict ordering its construction." What, several delays on July 7? Bad-hair day, that one. Put it after "edict", surely.
  • Clunky: "They were symmetrical, usually having five faces, with positions for infantry and artillery." What about "They were symmetrical and usually of five faces, with positions for infantry and artillery."
  • Again, it's the join between the ideas in a sentence that is awkward: "Therefore, the first seven forts were very similar; they differed only in the layout of their interiors, their integration into the surrounding relief, and in some construction details." --> "... very similar, differing only in ...". The ideas need to be glued together here (normally, it's the reverse problem in prose).

I'm sorry, but I have to oppose. The article needs a solid and careful copy-edit by someone who is well positioned to make it a smooth, enjoyable read. It's a good topic and it's a promising article, but I think it deserves a bit of air and resubmission after a few weeks. It will probably go through more quickly on second ride. Tony (talk) 14:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if you have other suggestions or areas to improve, please write them down now, in order to increase work efficiency. M.K. (talk) 18:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support I agree a copyedit would help, but it may have also been benificial to file an A-class review for the article before moving it to FAC since the A-class people tend to be harder toned on matter such as copyeditting. I would oppose on such grounds, but as an editor who relies on others for copyeditting help I can not find it in myself to side entirely with the oppostion. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quick note, this article is already an A class one. M.K. (talk) 22:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This article seems to be well-structured and comprehensive, but it does not yet meet all of the FA criteria.

Prose - I agree that the article could use a copyedit. While reading I saw a few infelicities. For example:

  • Since Lithuania was heavily wooded and its lands were often impassable, its interior was most approachable along its rivers when frozen and during the short dry harvest season in late summer.[7] In response to this vulnerability, defensive structures, including a brick castle in Kaunas, were in place at various points on the Nemunas River by the 14th century. - This is awkward, particularly "in response to" and "were in place".
  • In 1915 only one fort, the Ninth, was in conformance with the new technological criteria, while the Tenth Fort was only partially built. - "was in conformance" should be "conformed with"
  • Researchers have identified factors contributing to the relatively rapid fall of the fortress - empty statement - describe the factors somehow

Sources:

  • This source should not be used - it is a class project written by graduate students.
  • I am unsure why this source is reliable - could you explain?
    • Done. official portal of city Kaunas. M.K. (talk) 13:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who is the author of this publication? What is its publisher? I am unconvinced of its reliability.
    • Done. As I understand it is a render of criteria, however not to distract attention I removed this sources from the article. M.K. (talk) 13:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This page says "The material from: V.Orlov „Kauno tvirtovės istorija 1882 – 1915“. Kaunas, 2007." - Why not just use the original book, then? It is cited in the bibliography, so I assume you have access to it.
    • Done. Because web page is in English (we have only few of them about fortress) therefore people will have ability to investigate at least part of article's material more freely. And yes I have the original book too. M.K. (talk) 13:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This looks like a primary source for the project - do you not have a secondary source describing the project? This one could be viewed as self-promotional.
    • Comment. Written in neutral language and source presents basic info, hardly it can be called self-promotional piece. However will look for other one if you insist. M.K. (talk) 13:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images:

  • Image:Gamma-gerät.jpg - This image has a tag claiming it is in the PD because the copyright has expired since the author has died and 70 years have passed, however the author is not listed.

While I am opposing at this time, I hope to be able to support once these issues are resolved. Awadewit (talk) 23:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can see why my colleagues above are opposing on the basis of 1a. I have to reinforce my own previous illustrations of problems in the writing with a spot-check:
    • "On August 14, over 1,000 defending troops were killed,[16] but the Germans were unable to completely overcome the fortress' defenses. However, on the next day, August 15, Gamma-Gerät shells destroyed the First Fort ...". The second date is unnecessary if you say "on the next day". One or the other. "fortress's", please. I see fort in a caption, yet "Fort" elsewhere.
  • More redundancy: "its defenders sustained heavy casualty rates, ranging from 50% to 75%". Why not just "its defenders sustained heavy casualty rates of 50% to 75%".

These are just random samples. Doesn't augur well. Tony (talk) 05:13, 10 October 2008 (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/Kaunas_Fortress/archive1&oldid=1138465110"