Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Łódź insurrection (1905)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Łódź insurrection (1905)

Nominator(s): Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me


I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I think it fulfills A-class requirements. It is one of my GAs from earlier this year, just didn't get about to A-class reviewing it sooner. One thing I wish we had is a map, but not a single source I used had it, so we are out of luck here, with regards to easy fixes. On the bright side, we have File:Plan Łodzi 1897.jpg, which could be adapted into such a map (time range seems close enough, less than a decade), but sadly I don't have the image editing skills for that, and the map seems to be in Russian, so I cannot even decipher all of the streets on it. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 04:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Comments

  • Good to see an article on this period of history, and plenty of good work has clearly gone into it. I'm not sure it's quite ready for A class yet though, some thoughts below:
  • "Down with the autocracy! Down with the war!" - if it's a quote, I think the MOS suggests that the link to autocracy should be removed.
  • "The Russo-Japanese War has caused rising dissent" - "had caused"?
  • "70,000 workers in were on strike" - excess "in"
  • "social support for the sick" - "financial support"?
  • "Tensions mounted further, and in the evening of 21[6][10] or 22 June[11] (sources vary), angry workers began building barricades and assaulting police and military patrols, killing those who did not surrender" - I'd add a footnote, explaining what the difference sources said. (Ditto the later "sources vary" remark)
  • "liqueur stores" - just to check, do you mean liqueur (a flavoured alcoholic beverage), or liquor (a strong alcoholic drink)?
  • "(were four barricades were located)" - "where", not "were"
  • "The uprising was reported in international press and recognized by socialist and communist activists worldwide" - recognised as what?
  • On the sources, is Gazeta Wyborcza really a high quality source? It is referenced extensively in the article, but appears to be a Polish newspaper, equivalent to the British Times, which I wouldn't normally regard as a good A-Class source for military history.Hchc2009 (talk) 20:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most issues fixed. I did not create the footnotes, as I tend to think that referencing numbers in such cases makes it clear which source gives what (contradictory) claim. If you think it is a MoS issue and would kindly point me to the right MoS section, I can revise that. With regards to GW source, you are right it is a newspaper similar to Times. I was not aware that such sources are not considered reliable; I have milhist A-class articles using GW as a source (ex. Armia Krajowa) and FAs as well (ex. Polish culture during World War II). My understanding is that such sources are accepted, unless it is for something controversial, or we could easily use other sources. With LI, the only sources I didn't use are some Polish-language offline printed sources that I don't have access to. Articles from GW were quite helpful in enriching this article, and I have no reason to doubt their reliability. Has something changed in WP:RS/A/FA-class requirements in the past few months? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 21:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentsSupport
    • No dabs [1] (no action required).
    • External links check reports one dead link [2]:
      • Łódź – pochodnia polskiego socjalizmu (info) [lewicowo.pl]
    • Images lack Alt Text [3] (suggestion only).
    • The Citation Check Tool reveals no errors (no action required).
    • The images are all PD or appropriately licenced (no action required).
    • Inconsistent date format. In the infobox and parts of the article you have used Day, Month and Year; however, throughout the rest of the article you have used Month, Day and Year. Either is correct IMO, as long as it is used consistently.
    • Minor reword here "...who also declared martial law...", perhaps consider "...who declared martial law." (suggestion only).
    • Tense here "...believed that Poles must show their determination to regain independence...", consider "...believed that Poles should show their determination to regain independence...".
    • Per WP:HEADING generally we don't use the word "The" to start a heading. As such the section heading "The uprising", should probably just be "Uprising".
    • Tense here: "About a hundred barricades would be constructed over the course of the next few days...", consider instead "About a hundred barricades were constructed over the course of the next few days..."
    • "...as workers set some liquor stores on fire...", perhaps more simply just "...as workers set liquor stores on fire..."?
    • Is there a missing word here, I'm not sure. "...and the government forces assaulted first barricades, initially without much success...", perhaps "...and the government forces assaulted the first barricades, initially without much success..."
    • This is not grammatically correct IMO: "The Rokociny area was manned by about 3,000-strong worker militia...", perhaps consider: "The Rokociny area was manned by a 3,000-strong worker militia..."
    • "...or by the midday of 25 June...", perhaps consider: "...or by midday on 25 June..." Anotherclown (talk) 08:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I do have one comment on this though: "26 June[11] – sources vary". The n-dash should be an m-dash instead. Otherwise good work! Otto Tanaka (talk) 19:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note It looks like this ACR is stalling; unless the nominator can restart discussions or that more people support/oppose, I'll have to close this in two days. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 07:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am in the process of reading over the article and will post a review shortly. Please don't close the review just yet. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Suggestions: mainly just copy edit stuff, as I have no knowledge of the topic:
    • in the infobox there is no information regarding the strength of the Russian Empire. If it is unknown, it is probably best to say "Unknown" as per the other entries where this is the case;
      • I don't know why, but the infobox is simply not displaying the field; it has "strenght2=six infantry regiments and several cavalry regiments". Can anybody fix that? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 09:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • It was a typo, should have been "strength2=". Fixed now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • the duplicate links tool reports possible overlink of "strike action", "Warsaw", "Tsar" and "socialist";
    • "against the Russian Empire on 21–25 June 1905" (this might sound better as "against the Russian Empire between 21 and 25 June 1905";
    • the second sentence of the lead begins the same as the first, in the interests of reducing repetition, perhaps try using a pronoun, for instance: "It was one of the largest disturbances";
    • this seems awkward to me: "For months, workers in Łódź had been in a state of unrest, with several major strikes having taken place, forcibly suppressed by the Russian police and military". Perhaps try: "For months, workers in Łódź had been in a state of unrest, with several major strikes having taken place, which were forcibly suppressed by the Russian police and military."
    • I think that there is a missing word here: "On 26 January 1905 about 6,000 workers in took part in a large strike" (specifically after "in" but before "took");
    • "They demanded an 8-hour work week and support for the sick" (An 8 hour work week seems like very little work to me, do you mean 8 hours a day?);
    • inconsistent presentation of dates: "on May 1" but also "23 June". Either month day, or day month is fine, but you need to be consistent, IMO;
    • you have linked "Cossacks" and "Cossack" in the same paragraph, I think one of these would be enough;
    • "escalated into major demonstrations on 20 June and 21 June" (this could be simplified as: "escalated into major demonstrations on 20 and 21 June";
    • this is grammatically incorrect: "and few dozens of semi-enlisted workers". Perhaps try either: "and a few dozen semi-enlisted workers" (this would imply around 24 individuals or slightly more), or "and dozens of semi-enlisted workers" (this implies a lot more than 12 individuals);
    • "killing those who did not surrender" (Do we know what happened to those that did surrender? Or how many in fact surrendered?)
      • Not as far I can remember from the sources I no longer have access to. It may be a good question to leave on talk for the future editors interrested in this. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 09:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Around the Wschodnia street" (I think this should be "Around Wschodnia street");
    • "workers opened fire on a company of soldiers" (you could probably wikilink "company" here to Company (military unit), as this would give readers an understanding of the size of the force);
    • inconsistent presentation: "The tsarist representatives" (here you have used lower case "tsarist" but elsewhere you use upper case "Tsarist", this should be consistent);
    • "six infantry regiments and several cavalry regiments" (Do you know how many soldiers this equated to?);
    • "On the 23 June, all industries, workshops" (should be "On 23 June, all industries, workshops" - no "the" before the date here);
    • "were captured by the Russian troops by the end of 24 June". (Probably might sound better as: "were captured by Russian troops by the end of 24 June");
    • in the Further reading section: "Warsaw: Publisher?" I'd suggest leaving the book out, rather than include an entry like this. Or may be say "Publisher unknown". AustralianRupert (talk) 10:44, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Łódź_insurrection_(1905)&oldid=1089907451"