# Talk:Vilna offensive

Image:Polish army in Wilno 1919.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 08:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Certain croup of polish volunteers insisting that tag should be removed because, there is no ongoing discussion. May I ask which WP official policy suggest and states that unsolved arguments stated previously and previuos discussion becomes invalid after some time? M.K. (talk) 13:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
M.K, if you have issues with the article, please state them specifically. This will help us understand what your problem is. --Lysytalk 19:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Am I understand correctly, you failed to present any rationale with regards of official WP policies, which support previuos edits that older unsolved arguments and discussion becomes invalid? I will wait for a while to receive more precise answer. M.K. (talk) 15:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Currently it is you who have failed to present any arguments. Tags require rationale, which is quite visibly lacking here. Removal of tags without rationale is perfectly in line with our policies.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  16:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

What is the intended meaning of this sentence in the lead: In the aftermath, the Vilna offensive would cause much turmoil on the political scene in Poland and abroad. --Lysytalk 08:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

What is unclear about it? It was covered, discussed and criticized (and supported) by many for various reasons.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  18:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
It's very vague and it's only in the lead. I do not see the topic being discussed in the article's body. If it's important for the article, it should be explained in more detail. If it's not, why put such sentence in the summary only ? --Lysytalk 19:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It was supposed to describe the aftermath section. Feel free to adjust it if you feel it sounds strange.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  19:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

1. Well written?: Fail Pass
1.1 Prose

Although generally good, I feel that the entire article could benefit from a copyedit.  If you wish, I can do this myself (I already copyedited the section that had the "please copyedit" tag on it, so I'm off to a start).  Of particular note:
There's quite a bit of information that relies on parentheses (which tends to disrupt the flow of the article).  Would it be possible to work the text in the parentheses into the article itself without that disruption?  For example:
"After three days of street fighting (April 19-21)" could be reworded as "After three days of street fighting from April 19-21"
"The forces moving on Vilna included the cavalry group of Colonel Władysław Belina-Prażmowski (nine squadrons supported by a light battery of horse artillery, about 800 men) and infantry under General Edward Rydz-Śmigły (three battalions of the Polish 1st Legions Infantry Division with two batteries of heavy artillery, about 2,500 men).[3]" should probably be reworded to: 
"The forces moving on Vilna included the cavalry grou pf Colonel Wladyslaw Belina-Prazmowski, composed of 800 men in nine cavalry squadrons and a battery of horse artillery; and infantry under General Edward Rydz-Smigly, his force containing 2,500 men in three battalions of the Polish 1st Legions Infantry Division and two batteries of heavy artillery."
Generally, military ranks shouldn't be shortened to Col. Gen. Luit.-Gen. etc.  Although us military history junkies (you and I included) will know what that means, someone coming to the page to locate information on the offensive probably won't.  It just helps to make the page as clear as possible
Good point. I found and expanded two col.'s and one lt.'s :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  19:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
*In the section Jewish Deaths, you say that "dozens of people connected with Litbel were arrested, and some were executed".  then, in the Soviet counteroffensive section, you state "The Polish victory infuriated the Soviets, leading to dozens of arrests and several executions among those connected to Litbel".  I'd suggest removing one of these to avoid the redundancy of it. 

Actually, this is not a redundancy: in Jewish deaths, we are discussing executions by Poles (who were executing Soviet symphatisers); in Soviet section - executions made by the Soviets (who were executing their own scapegoats).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  19:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh.  Ok, don't know why I didn't catch that before. Cam (Chat) 19:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
for those page viewers who don't know where Vilna is, it may help to expand upon where exactly Vilna is located in Poland/Lithania.  Although you and I both know where Vilnius is located, most people won't.
1.2 MoS

There are a couple issues concerning the formating of date wikilinks.  Most notably:
Dates should be wikilinked at their first appearance.  I didn't catch a wikilink for April 15, although I did catch one for April 19, just something to check.
2. Factually accurate?: Minor Fail Pass

Very well cited.  However...
Looking through the article history, there seems to be some disagreement concerning what some of the sources said about certain events or statistics.  To be on the safe-side, I'd double-check the errors to ensure that they are errors.
"*Well, I can try to answer specific questions, but as far as I remember (it was some time ago that I wrote this article), the sources used were reliable... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  19:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok.  I'm able to take that stuff in stride.  Cam (Chat)
3. Broad in coverage?: Pass

coverage is quite broad and comprehensive.  No objections.
4. Neutral point of view?: Pass
5. Article stability? Pass

Although there has been a lot of editing lately, none of it appears to be in the form of edit-warring.  As such, this section is passed.
6. Images?: Pass with comment

The maps check out ok for copyrights.  However, I'd be interested to see whether there is a Polish Public-Domain template in place for use in the copyright for the infobox image.
As such, I have placed this article On Hold.  Although (technically), it says "one week until pass/fail" I feel that some common sense has to be applied when reviewing GA-Articles.  Provided that progress is made, I won't be failing this article any time soon.  If you have questions, feel free to contact me on My Talk Page.  All the best, Cam (Chat) 05:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Passing GA...Cam (Chat) 19:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations! —PētersV (talk) 22:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, just noticed something you might want to address. The inline citations cite Davies, but there are two books by Davies in the references section. It might be a good idea to explain in the inline citation which one you mean.--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Unless otherwise noted, they refer to his WERS monography on the PSWar.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  16:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Btw, I've added a new map but it doesn't want to go above the infobox, even through we have space on the left... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  23:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

One reads in the article following: "...The leader of the Polish forces, Józef Piłsudski, discerned an opportunity for regaining territories that were once the part of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, and since then were the part of the Prussia Empire, shaken by the 1917 Revolution and the ongoing Russian Civil War..." -- Vilnius, however, was never a part of Prussia Empire and there was no such thing as Prussia Empire at all. I think the reference here is made to Russian Empire.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.139.88.253 (talk) 08:48, 2 July 2015 (UTC)