Talk:Military of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth

Latest comment: 11 years ago by Pyrotec in topic GA Review
Good articleMilitary of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 27, 2012Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 10, 2012.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth army (troops pictured) was so underfunded that it was often outnumbered 12 to 1 by neighboring armies?

Name

edit

The article was moved from Army of... to Military of..., with the justification that it also covers the navy. I think that was a good move. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 15:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

GA Review

edit
This review is transcluded from Talk:Military of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 19:15, 16 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 19:15, 16 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Initial comments

edit

Overall, this article looks to be at or about GA-level so I'm going to work my way through the article starting with the Background section first and finishing with the Lead. My first impression is that the lead is rather "thin", but I will come to a firm decision on this later in the review. Pyrotec (talk) 19:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

  • Background -
  • Looks OK.
  • Heavy Polish-Lithuanian Hussars of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth -
  • This entire section, three paragraphs, is unreferenced.
  • Composition -
    • Organization -
  • Looks OK.
    • Formations and their evolution -
  • The fifth paragraph has: "......General of the Artillery (Poland)|General of the Artillery post into the Commonwealth army.[20]". Could this be an "either/or" job title or perhaps a pipe-lined wikilink, General of the Artillery (Poland), that has lost its the first pair of its first and last pair of square brackets/braces?
  • Sorry, I was working in a different web tab. Its this one (but the bolding is mine, it not in the article): "Starting in 1613, the ..... This time also marked the introduction of the General of the Artillery (Poland)|General of the Artillery]] post into the Commonwealth army.[20] ...."
This subsection has several short paragraphs (four of them) all of only two sentences each.
Thanks.  Y Pyrotec (talk) 19:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
Fixed all. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:36, 23 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

....stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 21:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for the delay, but I'm back reviewing now. Pyrotec (talk) 19:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

    • Command structure -
  • Looks OK.
  • Navy & Logistics and tactics -
  • These two sections look OK.
  • Problems and reforms -
  • I fixed a few minor "problems" in grammar and merged a short paragraph into the one before. If I've changed the meaning, feel free to redo my changes.
  • Now, it looks OK.
  • The lead does appear to induce the topic of the article and summarise the main points, which is its proper function, but its rather "thin". The lead would be better if it had a bit "more meat", so about twice as long as it currently is.
  • I saw that you had added material to the lead and fixed the broken link, so I awarded the article GA status. Since there is a new section on Operational history, you should ensure that the new material is also added to the Lead in summary form. Pyrotec (talk) 20:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Overall summary

edit

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:  
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:  
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:  
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:  
    C. No original research:  
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:  
    B. Focused:  
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:  
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:  
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:  
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:  

I'm pleased to be able to award this article GA. It's been sitting around a long time in the WP:GAN queue. Congratulations on producing an informative article, which is now a GA, on a topic previously unknown to me. Pyrotec (talk) 20:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply