Wikipedia:Featured article review/Battle of Warsaw (1920)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 01:36, 24 April 2009 [1].

Addendum: At no stage did any user suggest that one of the sources used plagiarised another source, it was that this Wikipedia article followed the source in question too closely. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 06:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also upon request I have refactored the page to remove the real person's name from it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Warsaw (1920)[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

1(c) - referencing. Also Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Background: promoted in 2005 and not reviewed since. Notifications: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Poland [2], User:Halibutt [3], User:Piotrus [4], User:Logologist [5], Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history [6]


Close paraphrasing from website: [7]. Copyrighted. The Wayback Machine version dates to 2003. [8]

Close paraphrasing examples:

  • Website: Only days later the Soviets paid dearly for that mistake.
  • Article: A few days later, the Soviets paid dearly for this mistake.
  • Website: That offensive would separate the Western Front from its reserves and disorganize its movements.
  • Article: This would separate the Soviet Western Front from its reserves and disorganize its movements.
  • Website: Eventually, the gap between Gen. Sikorski's 5th Army and the advancing Assault Group would close near the East Prussian border, leaving the Soviet offensive "trapped in a sack."
  • Article: Eventually, the gap between Gen. Sikorski's army and the Strike Force lead offensive would close near the East Prussian border, and result in the destruction of the "trapped in a sack" Soviet offensive.
  • Website: when a copy of it fell accidentally into Soviet hands it was considered to be a deception attempt and... ignored.
  • Article: Ironically, when a copy of the plan accidentally fell into Soviet hands it was considered to be a poor deception attempt and ignored.[1]
  • Website: The most important role, however, was assigned to a relatively small (20 000), newly assembled Strike Force composed of battle hardened and most determined army units drawn from the southern front.
  • Article: The most important role, however, was assigned to a relatively small (some 20,000-man), newly assembled "Reserve Army" (also called the "Assault Group" [Grupa Uderzeniowa]), commanded personally by Józef Piłsudski, comprising the most battle-hardened and determined Polish units drawn from the southern front.
  • Website: His units supported by tanks, armoured cars and artillery of two armoured trains advanced at the speed of thirty kilometers a day shredding literally within few days the Soviet "enveloping" manoeuvre in the north.
  • Article: Sikorski's units, supported by the majority of the small number of Polish tanks, armoured cars, and artillery of the two armoured trains, advanced at the speed of 30 kilometres a day, soon destroying any Soviet hopes for completing their "enveloping" manoeuvre in the north.[1]

Two of these have inline cites to ref #1. Please post the portions of ref#1 that support those cites, and an English translation.

Even if the paraphrasing were fixed, the source problem would remain. The website author, Bozenna Kirkpatrick, has no presence in Google books [9] or Google scholar [10]. .ca is not a reliable source: see [11] - Electronic Museum is supported entirely by donations from Sponsors and Visitors - like You !

Another sourcing issue: 17 refs go to this website: [12] by this author. He's a chemist and an amateur historian. Hetmanusa.org is the website of the Polish Militaria Collectors Association. I don't think this is an FA-quality source.

Stats: The Russian troop numbers in the ref don't match the ones in the article. The article states 104,000–140,000[1], but Ref #1 gives 104-114 tys. żołnierzy Armii Czerwonej. Novickas (talk) 16:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Close paraphrasing rewritten; feel free to do it yourself if you find any in the future. I don't see any references to "Bozenna Kirkpatrick", nor to "Electronicmuseum" (btw, Wikipedia is also supported by donations ;p). As for Larynowicz, you complained about him on RSN once already (here) and I cited reasons there why he is reliable; nobody has challenged them there. The 140/114 error seems like a typo and has been corrected. PS. Please notify WikiProject Military History as well. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's good you have fixed the paraphrasing. No, the electronicmuseum site was not referenced, but that's where the material came from. You have quickly inserted refs to a book in their stead - under the circumstances, I ask that you provide quotations and translations from that book. As for Witold L. - this FAR will serve as a broader venue for his status as a reliable source. His results in Google books - 2; 1 is a biological abstract, the other a footnoting snippet [13]. Google Scholar - [14] (chemical except for one to Wikipedia) or [15] - no history-related articles. I submit that his historical works are not reliable sources "published in reputable peer-reviewed sources and/or by well-regarded academic presses." Novickas (talk) 18:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone run thru this with a plagiarism tool? Here's a couple more:

  • Website: During the offensive the 1st Division of the Legion, in order to cut enemies retreat, did a remarkable march from Lubartow to Bialystok - 163 miles in 6 days. Soldiers fought two battles, slept only few hours and marched for up to 21 hours a day. Their sacrifice and endurance was rewarded by cutting of the entire 16th Soviet Army at Bialystok and taking most of its troops prisoner [16]
  • Article: The Polish 1st Division of the Legion, in order to cut the enemy's retreat, made a remarkable march from Lubartów to Białystok - 163 miles (262 km) in 6 days. The soldiers fought in two battles, slept only a few hours, and marched for up to 21 hours a day. Their sacrifice and endurance was rewarded when the entire 16th Soviet Army was cut off at Białystok with most of its troops taken prisoner.
  • Website: Four Soviet armies begun march toward Warsaw on July 4th in the framework of the North-Western Front. By the end of August the 4th and 15th Armies were defeated in the field, their remnants crossed Prussian border and were disarmed. Nevertheless, these troops were soon released and fought against Poland again.[17]
  • Article: Four Soviet armies began to march toward Warsaw on July 4 in the framework of the North-Western Front. By the end of August, the 4th and 15th Armies were defeated in the field; their remnants crossed the Prussian border and were disarmed. Nevertheless, these troops were soon released and fought against Poland again. Novickas (talk) 12:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Image problems: File:Polish-soviet war 1920 Aftermath of Battle of Warsaw.jpg and File:Polish-soviet war 1920 Polish defences near Milosna, August.jpg do not have sources. The copyright status of File:Tukhachevsky-mikhail-2.jpg is uncertain; unfortunately, I'm not sure how to investigate per-WWII Soviet copyrights. Can {{PD-Russia-2008}} be used? DrKiernan (talk) 13:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since the two images are from 1920, I'd assume they are almost certainly PD, and fall under Template:Poland-PD.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So back to referencing. More opinions please, on whether the article uses high-quality sources representing a comprehensive survey of the topic. Twenty inline cites to this [18] website by Witold L. Here's his bio. [19]. Surely there are many more scholarly references out there.

If it were a comprehensive survey of all the literature, it would contain, for instance, an alternative to L's "Stalin, in search of personal glory, wanted to capture the besieged, important industrial center of Lwów." Richard Pipes et al. are convinced that Stalin, in not moving towards Warsaw, was acting on Lenin's orders [20]. Another contradiction here, I think: this book states the Soviets accidentally destroyed their own communications center [21]. The article, ref'd to L., says the 203rd Uhlan Regiment destroyed it. I'm not an expert on the topic, but a little digging has convinced me that its review suffered from a lack of knowledgeable editors. The reviewers didn't catch the plagiarism, for starters. Novickas (talk) 16:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations, quality of sources, close paraphrasing. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist There are inconsistencies in the format of the references (pp. vs. p, referencing style, etc.), issues with sourcing (ref 7 does not appear to be a reliable source; I recommend you verify the article on the sources cited in that reference). Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 02:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Article exclusively relies on two unspecified web pages. WP is mature enough, to have its bets articles written based on published materials. The whole "order of battle" is not sourced as I see, the bullets should be converted to table as well. M.K. (talk) 12:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Battle_of_Warsaw_(1920)&oldid=1089816645"