# Talk:Siege of Viborg (1710)

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.

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)

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)

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)