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.

---

• Not promoted AustralianRupert (talk) 09:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Grandiose (talk)

Withdrawn by me from a recent FAC, but I have addressed most (close to all) the issues raised there, and therefore think it is suited to A class with a view to a second FA nomination once the issues are sorted out. I've opened a tandem request at the copyeditors' guild, if there are any people here willing to do that. Hopefully we can get any remaining issues sorted out. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Welcome to the Military History project. I generally copyedit after other things have been dealt with, but feel free to ask on my talk page if something needs dealing with sooner. - Dank (push to talk) 19:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Since I've noticed Grandiose has map-making skills, I'd like to ask if we can count on the map for the entire war? While it is not required, it would be very useful. As for the other issues, some of those I raised during FAC have been addressed, but not all. Please let me know, Grandiose, when you feel you've addressed them all and I'll revisit them. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm struggling to find a source for the map. On the Oliva mentioning from the FAC, I'm struggling to distinguish the Treaty of Oliva from the Treaty of Copenhagen (1660) and would welcome input on that. Whilst we're here, the commenters in the FAC were unclear between them whether Battle of Ula is the Battle of Czaniki, and, if it is, whether there were battles three years apart or just the one. my sandbox has a version of the FAC where I've deleted issues I believe I've covered, so you can check to see if you disagree with my assessment of the issues from the FAC remaining. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pl wiki article on the battle matches with the en wiki article. I am not sure what you find confusing about Treaty of Copenhagen (1660) and Treaty of Oliva; they share the same year, but have articles developed sufficiently to make it clear they were different? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This edit (by User:Skäpperöd) is confusing, because, judging by the articles, Livonia was a consideration at Oliva and not Copenhagen? Perhaps we could say it was kept after both. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a ref that mentions Oliva and Livonia. Hope that helps, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, will the map now in the Truces section suffice? I think it's the situation from that time onwards, but that's guesswork - the original uploader said c.1600. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the article was copyedited by User:Philg88 on behalf of the Copyeditors' Guild. This should mean the review can start in earnest when the times comes. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref comments:
  • There are three citations without page numbers (marked as such)
  • There is ref to "Stone 1991, p. 123" - is it the same as Stone 2001?
  • "Peterson 2007, pp. 91–93" should be broken down into page-by-page ref
  • Refs to public domain books: would provide info & links to the first publication as it is fully accessible in the U.S.
• Renata (talk) 17:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work, Renata. I've done the page numbers, and will look into the Stone and Peterson issues. I'm afraid I don't understand what you want to happen with public domain works, but I have now filled out Solovyov to a paper copy, so they are now effectively identical to any other book. Could you elaborate? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

["Stone (1991)" looks like an error, but I have asked Skäpperöd about it [it was]; Peterson I have managed to split into 91 and 92-3 sections, since I don't have access to the second two pages. I hope this suffices, it's a 4/4 split on use. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)][reply]

I'm going to get a lot more time over the Bank Holiday weekend than I usually would to edit, and would therefore like to ask for comments now, if you've been holding back. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: An interesting article. If I were going to propose any additions, they'd be around:

• The geography of the area - a few early sentences describing whether the region was (perhaps) wilderness, farmland, tundra, forest etc. would give the casual reader a clearer sense of what kind of territory the campaigns were fighting over.
• The sorts of military technology of the period. Again, for the casual reader, was this a war fought with muskets, pikes, bows, etc.?

Cheers, Hchc2009 (talk) 15:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The question is that of scope. There is little - but some - on those topics (the weather problems for one siege; and Russian tactic and army constituents), and nothing else seems to have been written about the field conditions or armies in the sources. We do not, though, leave the reader without options on Wikipedia as a whole. I'll do my best to find some information if people do want to see it. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've had time to check the sources, and there is little mention of either of these things, and I am reminded also of what is in the article, which amounts to a couple of paragraphs on these things. (The first and third paragraphs of "Russian invasion of Livonia", and fourth of "Swedish and Polish–Lithuanian alliance and counter-offensives" for the weaponry and army details). In essence, I think the article gives them an appropriate weight bearing in mind the relatively low importance their coverage in the RS would suggest. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Co-ord comment: this review will be due to be listed for closure in about two days. As such, would reviewers mind taking a look at the changes that have been made and stating if they support or oppose promotion to A-class? This will make it easier for the closing co-ord to make a decision about the outcome of this review. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, this review has been open for more than 28 days now, and unfortunately has not gathered the required three supports, so I will have to close it as unsuccessful. Please feel free to nominate the article again for ACR when you feel it is ready. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:48, 12 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.