# Talk:Romanian Volunteer Corps in Russia

This review is transcluded from Talk:Romanian Volunteer Corps in Russia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) 10:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

References
Surname before first name needed. And in inline citations.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Not sure why a lot of the refs have [ ] around page number. Personally I prefer the harvard style of refs in articles like William Burges.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:47, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Lead
"As campaigners for self-determination and union with Romania, they passed collective resolutions which, in both tone and scope" What is meant exactly by "tone and scope" in this context?
That they intended to be regarded, and are sometimes regarded, as declarations of Romanian unification. Dahn (talk) 11:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
"but its units were for long divided between the existing local regiments." Clumsy phrasing, needs rewording.
Done. Dahn (talk) 11:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
why is "Romanian Legion" of Italy in quote marks?
Optional. Dahn (talk) 11:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
"Mobilized volunteers or prisoners symbolically tied to the Corps were left behind in Russia after the Russian Civil War was ignited. Various such groups." You refer to individuals here, shouldn't that be "Various such individuals"?♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Good catch. Dahn (talk) 11:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Origins
Entente. Can you link to the specific article it is referring to?
It's linked in the bottom of the lead, which in my display is not one screen away from the first line of "Origins", even with a ToC between them. I thought it would have been overkill, but feel free to link it if you disagree. Dahn (talk) 11:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Once in lead, once in main body is fine.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
"In Russia, Romanian captives were complained" were complained?♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:47, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
"In Russia, Romanian captives were allegedly the recipients of worse treatment when compared to prisoners from other Austro-Hungarian backgrounds," Who alleges this?
It seems to be based on various testimonies, that the sources do not list in detail. (It would be understandable, considering that many other KuK prisoners were Slavic.) I reworded a bit for attribution. Dahn (talk) 11:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:45, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

February
"Over the next month, in Mogilev, Coandă again negotiated the Corps' recognition by Stavka. Coandă received the permission, but the number of recruits was no longer clearly specified." Can you reword this a little I felt  a bit uneasy reading it. "Negotiating the Corps recognition". Shouldn't "was" be "were no longer specified"?♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
"However, Corps veteran Petru Nemoianu (Nemoian) was later to state that envy and class conflict were also characteristic for the formation"  - later stated that?
"noting that they were sorely needed" - desperately needed? Sorely seems inappropriate in my opinion in that context.
Darnystia manifesto
"Their manifesto of April 26 (April 13)" what date was it then?♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

This was to avoid relinking the "Old Style" template used above, assuming that readers will have understood that the second date is the OS one. Dahn (talk) 11:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
I didn't. Can you alter slightly?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
"The Darnytsia soldiers soon gave themselves a special banner,"  - soon adopted a special banner?
Arrival to Iasi
What is a special train? Specially protected?♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:48, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Specially commissioned. Dahn (talk) 11:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
"The battalion arrived to the city of Iaşi," - arrived in?
During and after
"the Romanian General Staff gave itself a Biroul A. B ("T[ransylvania] and B[ukovina] Bureau") "  gave itself a Biroul A.B? Eh? What's that. Maybe the Romanian General Staff established the Transylvania and Bukovina Bureau (Biroul A.B)?
"Units of the Volunteer Corps distinguished themselves in the defense of eastern Romania, which postponed the Central Powers' advance during summer 1917. " actively engaged rather than distinguished?♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:15, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
"these asked to be merged back into a"  - they requested reintegration?
"The divisive command structure till disappointed Transylvanian and Bukovinan units." Till?
"since most such captives"  -since the majority of such captives?
I tried to address the concerns, please verify the changes. ("Till" was a misprint for "Still".) Dahn (talk) 07:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, that's better.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 
B. MoS compliance: 
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 
B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 
C. No original research: 
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 
B. Focused: 
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 
B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Prose is still a little rough in places but I think overall its an informative well researched article which meets the criteria. Some reviewers would show considerable concern at the number of red links and ideally there wouldn't be any, but I personally see them as serving a productive purpose.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Romanian Front - January 1917.png
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC)