Wikipedia:Peer review/Battle of Podhajce (1698)/archive1

Battle of Podhajce (1698)

I have just finished significantly expanding this stub article and I hope it to obtain C-Class. Definitely I need help with English syntax I wrote. I have also created 2 battle maps for this article that I would love te be reviewed. Another problem I'm wondering about is which language I should take the name of the town from(English, Polish - who owned thes places at the time of the battle, Ukrainian - current place location). This is my first significant contribution, I appreciate any help a lot.

Thanks, Kontekstowy (talk) 19:03, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello Kontekstowy and thanks for your contributions to this article. I can't help you with all your questions so I'll focus on language and references. Maybe someone else can address the remaining points.

Concerning language: there seem to be various problems with missing articles, like "the". For example

• Battle of Podhajce took place on 8–9 September add "The" before "Battle"
• Ottoman Empire was defeated during Azov campaigns (1695–1696) and in 1697 in the Battle of Zenta. add "The" before "Ottoman Empire" and "the" before "Azov campaigns"
• focus on succession of Habsburg Spain during impending death of Charles II of Spain add "the" before "succession" and before "impending"
• began negotiations with Ottoman Empire proposing end of war with each member of Holy League keeping add "the" before "Ottoman Empire", before "end", and before "Holy League"

This affects most paragraphs so fixing all of it would require some effort. There is a lot of information on the internet that explains when articles should and shouldn't be used and a grammar-checker might also be of help.

Concerning references: most of the paragraphs in this article lack references, like the paragraphs starting with In January 1698, Stambul's intelligence, In the afternoon, the first group led by Qaplan, and During the night war council Potocki decided to give battle to the Tatars outside the city. According to WP:V, All content must be verifiable and inline citations are required for all material that is likely to be challenged. It's usually a good practice to ensure that each paragraph has at least one inline citation. They are not required for the lead section if it only summarizes material in the body of the article that has already citations. Currently, the article is based on a single source (Wojtasik 1990), which is probably not a good idea. I would suggest that you look up more sources to have some variety.

A few other observations

• WP:EARWIG shows no copyright problems
• the wikilink to Great Turkish War is repeated in the lead (see WP:DUPLINK
• its numbers was between 30,000 and 50,000. replace "was" with "were"
• Polish and Saxons troops located replace "Saxons" with "Saxon"

Phlsph7 (talk) 15:08, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Phlsph7 for help, I have aplied fixes and soon will do some online articles course

I have already covered the whole article with inline citations (19) and indeed there are three big sections that I thought it would be enough to make inline citation covering multiple pages at the end of section. I will divide these citations and this will probably increase number of citations to ~30.

I know that relying on single source is not the best approach yet this is probably the best and only comprehensive study of this battle written by contemporary historian. I was previously trying to find academic articles(Google Scholar/library database) finding only 2 articles in historical magazine by the same author. This book contains multiple refrences to primary and secondary sources that it uses, but I won't use them because I'm not a historian and I would distort something . So I'll leave it to other Wikipedians who will add more content someday. Kontekstowy (talk) 21:02, 28 January 2024 (UTC)