Wikipedia:Featured article review/Warsaw Uprising (1794)/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 04:32, 20 October 2009 [1].
Warsaw Uprising (1794) edit
Review commentary edit
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Notified: Piotrus, Halibutt, Irpen, WikiProject Military history, Polish WikiProject.
I am nominating this featured article for review because it does not longer meet the FA criteria. The article was promoted in August 2006 and no review has been conducted since then. There are large portions of the article uncited (1c) and the majority of sources used are non-english. It should be verified if no English-language equivalent sources exist. However, a thorough referencing clean-up should be made. Eurocopter (talk) 18:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I was involved in the original referencing and I am sure it was done well. References in foreign languages are acceptable. Editors are of course welcome to improve the article by adding more references in other languages. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Are acceptable but should be replaced if an English equivalent exists per WP:RS. --Eurocopter (talk) 20:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Amended by addition, not replaced. If it says replaced, let me know where; such a policy needs to be changed :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Are acceptable but should be replaced if an English equivalent exists per WP:RS. --Eurocopter (talk) 20:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As the author of most of the original FA content I should probably throw in a cent or two.
- First of all, there were barely any English sources on the topic in 2006. Most of those that were available to me (Warsaw University Library, Google Books and such) were simply short notes in some encyclopaedias and such. What's more, many of them were far from reliable in that they repeated 19th-centurish misconceptions that were dropped by modern Polish historiography long ago (like for instance the ridiculous claims by Kiliński). I doubt there are more sources now as the topic doesn't seem to be high enough on the list of priorities for English-language historians.
- Of course we could cut the article only to statements that are available in English-language sources, but that would mean cutting the article to little more than a stub. I see no point in that, especially that there is a plethora of Polish language monographs, all of them by respected historians, peer reviewed and so on. If the choice is between good article based on Polish and Russian sources and bad article based on English sources, I'd go for the first option.
- If you feel something is fishy with this or that chunk of the text, just ask for a source and I'll be happy to provide it. Especially that many of the sources cited in the text are available on-line and easy to check. BTW, that's precisely what the {{fact}} template is for. However, I believe marking the entire article as "not meeting the FA criteria" without citing specific paragraphs that need revision is neither helpful nor justified.
- Finally, what do you mean by a "thorough referencing clean-up"? What's wrong with the current refs except for the fact that the majority of them are not in English?
Regards, //Halibutt 21:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course cutting the text is not a solution. First of all, I have added tags in places where citation needed, although I'm pretty sure you are familiar of how a current FA should look like. Secondly, you should have separate sections for notes and references - see examples of clean referencing systems here and here. I know that it's a bit of work to do, but FA standards grew up since 2006. --Eurocopter (talk) 21:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment on sources There is an over-reliance on "Kazimierz Bartoszewicz (1913). ">>Święta Insurrekcyja<< w Warszawie". Dzieje Insurekcji Kościuszkowskiej (History of the Kościuszko's Uprising)." which is sad, because its a 1913 work. I'm quite happy for the sources to be primarily Polish as long as 1) They're scholarly peer reviewed (of course) and 2) you try to find scholarly book reviews in English of the works, and 3) you include commented-out quotes (in Polish) so we can google translate the key evidentiary sentences for second editor verification. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary edit
- Suggested FA criteria concern are citations. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist as sourcing quality no longer meets WP:WIAFA or WP:MILMOS#SOURCES standards (a level B- standard). Fifelfoo (talk) 01:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist Issues raised above not resolved. --Eurocopter (talk) 18:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist, as per Fifelfoo (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 21:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.