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.

---

Promoted by The ed17 19:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC) [1][reply]

Livonian War[edit]

Nominator(s): —Grandiose (me, talk, contribs)

• Featured article candidates/Livonian War/archive1
• Featured article candidates/Livonian War/archive2

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

The previous A class review (here) which closed a few days ago was inconclusive, suffering mainly from a lack of reviewers. Thus, I'd like to garner some more input. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Piotrus

• The article is steadily improving, good job. But there are still items that should be fixed.
• The article doesn't use Google Book links to pages. This is not an objection, just a comment as it makes verification extremely cumbersome. That said, I believe that removal of Google Book links (for example, the one I added here is gone) is damaging the article and making it less helpful, not to mention wasting work of mine and other editors who spent time providing those page links for the refs. I am sure this was done to standardize the refs, but is should've been done by improving them, not dumbing them down. And it can be done easily ("Oakley 1993, p. 26" is hardly difficult to do)

The appropriate guideline is Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Linking to Google Books pages, which is clear that it is not necessary (that particular one was removed because the book was already cited). The references use the "harvnb" template, and it isn't obvious how one would link to particular pages. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the way I just showed above. The very policy you cite says "No editor is required to add page links, but if another editor adds them, they should not be removed". You removed the links I and others added, and I find this unhelpful (please note this is a criticism of a minor item, not your overall positive and welcome work on the article). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't follow. This edit (above) introduced a full citation. The referencing system employed throughout the article at the time was for "Name (Year) p. #.", so I shortened it accordingly. At the moment, it employs syntax like ((harvnb|Frost|2000|p=76)), which does not seem easy to link to individual pages. It would need reverting and then linking, but we'd lose the added functionality of "harv"-templates, whereby the shortened citation is linked to the full one. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is with the template, then. It should have the functionality for direct links. As I said, I am not opposing on this technicality, I do however believe that you chose an inefficient template (which does not support Google Book links). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd like to see a cite for the following sentence: "In 1576, the Transylvanian prince Stefan Batory became King of Poland and Grand Duke of Lithuania after a brief but violent civil war with the Habsburg Emperor Maximilian II". In particular, I'd like to see a quoted justification for "violent". The war was brief, but was it more violent than others? Also, this section should mention that the war ended with Maximilian's surrender at Battle of Byczyna. death in 1577.

Removed the word "violent", unnecessary for the article scope, and referenced. On the Battle of Byczyna, I don't think it's inside the article's scope. It's one battle in a largely unrelated war: the leadership of the Commonwealth makes up only a small part of the Livonian War as it is. In reality, mentioning the war was on gives the right impression to the reader in terms of how it affected the Livonian War. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was in fact confused myself. Byczyna, as you point out, is part of the War of the Polish Succession (1587–1588), a struggle with a different Maximilian (III) that occurred after the Livonian war. I have clarified this in the article, although without adding any refs (something you may want to fix). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Many sentences still lack references. For example, "Batory accelerated the formation of the hussars, a new well-organised cavalry troop that replaced the feudal levy". Batory is remembered for introduction of hussars, this is one of his key achievements in Polish history - and one of many items that should be referenced. The next ref is in the middle of a later sentence (and why does that sentence lack a ref)? Or consider this sentence: "This was a humiliation for the Tsar, in part because he requested the truce in the first place" - tsar's humiliation needs a ref. I could go on with dozens more sentences lacking refs. I cannot support till each sentence is referenced.

• Did the one you pick out. The "tsar's humiliation" part, I added one since it's probably among the more controversial things in the paragraph. I was under the impression that three to four of the same reference per paragraph was the maximum the MOS allowed one to demand, I might be imagining this. You are welcome to use any preferred "citation needed"-esque tag if you'd prefer to demark them that way.Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure about demanding. I just know that when I write GA+ articles, I try to reference every single sentence, and nobody complains about that. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • FAC reviewers occasionally complain about over-referenced articles. I'm not sure, but I think the thinking is that it looks somewhat artificial not to reference any two successive sentences to the same source. (And of course, if the same source supports two successive sentences, one reference is usually enough.) OTOH, the readers shouldn't have to read your mind to know where the information is coming from. - Dank (push to talk) 03:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Several issues from the FA review have not been addressed. To requote:
  • Why the term Dominium Maris Baltici is present only as an external link? I think it is important enough to deserve a mention.
  • The aftermath discusses the Polish-Swedish struggle up to 1629, but the Danish-Swedish one till 18th century. Why? Pl wiki article discusses the P-S angle till the Treaty of Oliva (1660) and I think so should this article
• --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DMB: done (a note appears to be sufficient - it appears only in brief/name-drop in the referenced sources).

• Where is that? I still see "Dominium Maris Baltici" only in elinks. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Start of the "1562–1570: Northern Seven Years' War" section, I'd mispelled it, now corrected.Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath: I put a mention of Oliva. Is that sufficient or are we to discuss the relevancy of other conflicts to Livonia? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Comments:
  • no dab links, ext links all work (no action required);
  • the Earwig tool reports no copyright violations (no action required);
  • images lack alt text and although it is not a requirement, you might consider adding it in (suggestion only);
  • the images look correctly licenced to me, but you might consider translating some of the information on "File:LIVONIAE NOVA DESCRIPTIO 1573-1578.jpg" if possible;
  • in the lead, should this "the union (later commonwealth)" be capitalised as "the Union (later Commonwealth)"? The question to ask is if it is part of a proper noun group;
  • there is some inconsistency in date formats, for example "30 August 1579" and "September 5, 1580". These should probably be consistent;
  • this might need an extra comma: "The transfer of Riga, and the surrounding entrance to the River Dvina troubled" (I suggest adding it after "Dvina");
  • "Unfavorable conditions" (probably should be "Unfavourable conditions" - the article seems to mainly use British English spellings so it should be consistent throughout);
  • inconsistent spelling: "Maximillian II" and "Maximilan's death". AustralianRupert (talk) 22:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All suggestions followed (thanks for the attention, by the way) with the exception of ALT text, which I will look into. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:47, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All my concerns have been addressed, so I've added my support. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• How about this "Tsardom of Russia" again? Muscovy was the country called back then, the name "Russia" became to use only at the time of Peter the Great in the 18 cen. This "Tsardom of Russia" is a later invention that has also somehow creeped into wikipedia. I mean go to google scholar: "Tsardom of Russia" 43 hits vs. Muscovy 20,900 hits. An A article should use names that are adequate I think, not some invented names like the "Tsardom of Russia".--Termer (talk) 05:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You say "invented", but Russia/Russian is used throughout Madariaga's "Ivan the Terrible", and I believe the other reliable sources used in the article. It is in line with List of Russian rulers#Tsars of Russia .281547.E2.80.931721.29 (since the Livonian War was after 1547) and similarly Tsardom of Russia. Whilst I believe it may be more true to say "Tsar of All Russia", this is not widely used. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 08:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The name Russia/Russian is just more easily understood by the modern reader who exactly are they talking about at the time when the name Muscovy is historically accurate and is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English.--Termer (talk) 17:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't understand what "is just more easily understood by the modern reader who exactly are they talking about", but the term of Tsar of Russia seems to be universally used by reliable sources to describe Ivan's title after 1547. For example, EB: Ivan IV, grand prince of Moscow (1533–84) and the first to be proclaimed tsar of Russia (from 1547). (my emphasis). This is matched by the Wikipedia articles on the Tsardom of Russia, Ivan IV, List of rulers of Russia, and many others. If you disagree with what is a sizable number of Wikipedia articles, then this discussion must be had elsewhere, probably a RfC, where the evidence on both sides can be put across. Until that happens, I think the best thing is use the name used in the RS used as references in the article, which consistently refer to Russian forces with one or two exceptions (within works, not entire works). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have a point there this needs to be sorted out elsewhere on wikipedia at first. regarding the name Russia is just more easily understood by the modern reader compared to Muscovy, than there's nothing more to it: If you say Russia, an average reader has an idea what exactly are you talking about. If you say Muscovy an average reader may be lost with it, people may have not heard that historic name before and may not know where and what this Muscovy is all about. So using Russia/Russians therefore may work better in the context.--Termer (talk) 17:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI:Talk:Tsardom_of_Russia#Tsardom of Russia vs.Tsardom of Muscovy.--Termer (talk) 17:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"tsardom" by itself is certainly fine (it's in Merriam-Webster, and Ivan was a tsar), and any challenge that some place wasn't called by the modern name at the time can be answered by saying "in present-day" or "of present-day" (whatever). I've read "Russia" in modern sources to refer to the time, but don't quote me on that, I'm no expert. - Dank (push to talk) 03:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support
• This article looks very good to me, although I am no expert on the topic. Normally I would not review such an article, however there seems to be a lack of A class reviewers at the moment. After reading the whole thing there are only a couple of minor points that I can see:
  • Some inconsistency in the presentation of ISBNs (some have hyphens and others do not); and
  • The citation check tool reveals one error ("((harvnb|De Madariaga|2006|p=130)) - error is "Multiple references contain the same content"). Anotherclown (talk) 08:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both corrected. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 08:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Coordinator note: can you clarify if Piotrus' comments are a de facto support of the article? Thanks, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't oppose. I'd say I am weakly supporting - would fully if Google Books page links were added, as noted above. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 14:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've put the article up for FA again (I'm in the cup, and I need to complete in a month's time). I don't know whether the article can be up for both, but if not, I ask for some common sense to pass the article. Of course, it lacks the technical 3 supports (two-and-a-half, I suppose), so you'd be within rights to fail it. I hope not. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I responded on the FAC. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:56, 29 May 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.