Talk:Siege of Viborg (1710)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Siege of Vyborg (1710)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of the discussion was to promote this article to GA status.

---

Reviewer: RCSprinter123 (talk) 10:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

OK then, lets get cracking.

First of all, non of the references actually make any sense unless you can read Russian, and as this is on the English Wikipedia it isn't really reliable. You could translate the references, but not really the pages they link to (even though only four/53 refs actually link to a website). You'll have to find some reliable sources in English. RCSprinter123 (talk) 10:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Now, lets make a checklist.

The article is mainly clear, but a little confusing in parts. Spelling and grammar seems alright, so

All the manual of style guidelines are there

Now as mentioned above, can't really accept most of the citations so they'll have to be fixed before I can list it; but there doesn't seem to be any original research.

Yep, it addresses all the main aspects of the topic - namely the siege - and doesn't go into unnecessary detail.

It is perhaps leaning away from neutral, so nothing obvious, so I'm willing to let that go.

Fine for edit wars etc, nothing happening.

And there are plenty of images - 6 of them - and they are all in the public domain with relavant tags and captions.

There are seven s, and two s, so the majority speaks for itself. However, before I can list it, you need to fix the citations.

You have contributed to it alot, and made it so no problems there. You use all the proper templates and things, so thats fine. All I'm really stressing is the refs. In the lead section, you need to make clear the name. See, the name of the page is "Siege of Vyborg (1710)", but then you've put the bold text at the start of the article as "The Second Seige of Vyborg". You either need to rename the page or correct the lead text, because it makes it confusing to a reader.

You're getting, on average, 20 views a day, which isn't that many, and usually need lots of viewers to make it a GA, or there'll be no point. There've only actually been 4 contributors, which means that there hasn't been many people improving it. One of these was a bot, and the other ones spelling and tweaks to wording. Community page? I think not. On the whole though, you might pull through, just get something done about the refs.

Please reply to the discussion below. RCSprinter123 (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I said reply to the discussion below. (also see my notes below that) RCSprinter123 (talk) 13:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, please explain where you think it's confusing - I'm willing to work to get this article in good shape.

The main reason I have only Russian citations is because there is literally virtually nothing out there in English (that is reliable). I will translate the citations, but I can't remove or change them without taking massive chunks out of the article.

Yes, I am Russian, so it may lean a bit to that side, but again, nothing obvious. I guess this is where independent editors come in.

Yes, I have changed the lead section name.

I'm not sure that there would be no point, but I understand what you are saying. However, I work with the Russian and Soviet military history task force, and some of the Good Articles listed there get less than ten views a day, such as Ivan the Russian (which I think needs to be delisted), Soviet cruiser Kalinin, Polikarpov VIT-1, Battle of Kostiuchnówka, just to name a few.--Interchange88 ☢ 12:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

• Just a little confusing around the lead or Prior Events, perhaps, but you rectified the bold text at the start so that finishes it really.  Done

• Go ahead and translate the Russion citations, but if there isn't really anything there I can't list it.  Done

• Nothing happening with the neutrality.
  Lead section name, fine.
  And the no. of viewers thing doesn't really matter. I just though I'd bring it up while I was looking.  Done

That's it really. Comment on anything you wish to, or I'll list it as a Good Article. RCSprinter123 (talk) 13:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks like everything's been addressed! I will continue improving the article regardless of its status; I certainly think it's ready to be a Good Article. Thanks for your help! --Interchange88 ☢ 16:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Viborg vs Vyborg

Since the article handles for most parts the time when the town and the fortress were still Swedish shouldn't the name of the locality be changed in the article to 'Viborg' instead of using the Russian version of the same name 'Vyborg'. That is for the time period until the eventual capture or the treaty which ended the war and ceded the town to Russian Empire. - Wanderer602 (talk) 10:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I support a move to "Siege of Viborg", actually Viborg tend to be more in use (54 hits) compared to Vyborg (38 hits) judging from Google books. Imonoz (talk) 03:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Even though my comment was really related just to the name of the locality i do support the name change as it seems from the above that it would then follow the naming conventions more closely. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Let's see what Interchange88 feels about a possible move to Siege of Viborg. Imonoz (talk) 15:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Potential NPOV issue

All the referenced sources are Russian based - doesn't that disqualify the article from Good Article criteria per WP:GA? Quickfails - "The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way"? - Wanderer602 (talk) 10:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Inconsistencies

Something that i find inconsistent when i read the text through.

• When the siege corps arrived at Vyborg on the 22nd, they immediately occupied the settlement, forcing the Swedish defenders to withdraw to the fort. The Swedes had attempted to burn down the town itself to prevent it from falling into Russian hands, but failed to do so before they were driven into their fortifications.[16]

In other words this text implies that town fell to the Russians already at the start of the fight and that only fort would have remained in Swedish hands

• File:Siege_of_Vyborg_1710.png - text: The final days of the siege, by Alexei Rostovtsev

Russian guns are still seen as firing other targets than just the fort, bulk of the Russian guns are facing and firing at the walled town itself. So in contrary to first statement town would still be in Swedish hands.

• ''File:Vyborg_siege_diagram.gif and it's source viipuri-1710.html - text: Russian troop movements and battery positions

Images are described depicting the final phase of the siege and again Russian artillery is shown as firing at the walled town in addition to the fort/castle. Again town appears to be in Swedish hands.

Similar issues are raised when you compare what the text describes later on to the initial statement. Since i do not have access to the source used for the initial statement is it possible that it refers to the habitation outside of the town walls instead of actual town? Since torching those would have been logical step for the defender to perform. - Wanderer602 (talk) 13:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Explanation

There is an illustration showing that there were two sections to the town. The outermost (eastern) section had only wooden walls and quickly fell. The inner (western) section had stone walls, and was the "fort" where the Swedish garrisoned themselves. The guns in the images are firing from across the river, into the western section of the town, which was held by the Swedish up until the final assault.

I will change the word "fort", I admit it is somewhat misleading. I'll instead say something like "stone fortifications". --Interchange88 ☢ 19:28, 29 September 2012 (UTC)