Talk:Smolensk War

message: A very interesting fact seems to be missing from the article, and namely, the Ukrainian Cossacks' participation in the war. Incidentally, the future hetman Bohdan Khmelnytsky and another prominent Cossack Ivan Bohun participated in the Smolensk war. For his bravery Khmelnytsky was presented with a golden sword from King Wladislaw. I looked and could only find Ukrainian sources on that of historian Yuri Mytsyk. I was wodering if there are Polish sources that corroborate that, and if this fact can be included in the article? Below is the relevant passage in Ukrainian, if that could help to those, who can read it. 
::У 1633-1634 рр. Москва спробувала взяти реванш, розпочавши так звану Смоленську війну. Головні події відбулися саме під білоруським містом, яке врешті було взяте військом Речі Посполитої. Тут відзначилися запорожці, серед яких був і …Богдан Хмельницький, котрому король Владислав ІУ нагородив за це цінною шаблею. Потім настав відносний спокій, але запорожці, насамперед знаменитий Іван Богун, здійснювали у першій половині - середині 40-х років 17 ст. успішні походи проти Московської держави: від Кодака (суч. Дніпропетровськ) аж до Мордовії!  --Hillock65 15:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By all means, feel free to add it. I just finished reading the summary in Nagielski's book; he doesn't seem to mention those details, but please feel free to add yours if you think they are relevant. Eventually when this war gains its own subarticles, it can be split off, perhaps, but now its 'all about the Smolensk war'.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cossacks' participation in the war

message: I have done a minor copyedit so that the article reads slightly better in English. I hope that I haven't changed the sense of any sentences, the one change that I'm a little uncertain of was changing "Polish enemies" to "Poland's enemies" as I'm not certain whether it's correct the describe the whole Commonwealth as "Poland"? Changes made:
*addition of numerous "the"s - I get the impression that Polish doesn't use the definite article as often as English does!
*change of "Muscovy" to "Muscovite" in several places. Arguably either could be used, but referring to the people rather than the state seems to read better.
*use period rather than comma as the decimal separator in values ("6.5 million zloty" rather than "6,5 million zloty").
*"because of" is usually considered to be grammatically better than "due to".
*I've wikilinked dates so that user preferences can take effect. There is some mixture, as written, of mostly European English format dates and occasional American English format; I've not changed the underlying formats, but leave this to the regular editors.
I notice that generally the article is written in American English style, which is slightly surprising in a European subject (use of "fall" rather than "autumn" for the season, use of "ize" rather than "ise" suffix in words, and I noticed one instance of "fervor" rather than "fervour"). I have not changed any of the English dialect differences, and leave it to the regular editors to determine which form of English you want to use. - Arwel (talk) 20:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the copyedit!-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  05:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyedit

message: I have taken on Smolensk War for review under the Good Article criteria, as nominated on the Good article candidates page by Piotrus. You'll be pleased to 
hear that the article meets none of the quick-fail criteria, so I will shortly be conducting an in-depth review and will post the results below.
Where an article is not an outright pass, but requires relatively minor additional work to be 
brought up to GA standard, I will normally place it on hold - meaning that editors have around a 
week to address any issues raised. As a precaution to prevent failure by default should this 
occur, if editors are likely to be unavailable over the next ten days or so, feel free to leave 
a message on my talk page so we can arrange a more convenient time for 
review. Regards, EyeSereneTALK 10:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I may not be very active over the coming week.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  14:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem; from my initial readthrough it looks like the most the article might need is a further minor copyedit - sourcing is the usual issue at GA review (and one which needs expert attention), but not in this case ;) I'll go ahead with the review, and maybe ce myself if that's ok? EyeSereneTALK 11:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By all means, ce as much as you want. Thanks! -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  02:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Looks good to me. I corrected the confusing sentence, and restored the one which I think has relevant detail.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  04:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA review 

message: (contd from above): Thank you both! I have undertaken a further copyedit, and made a few alterations to the layout to comply with the Manual of Style. Hopefully these are alright - please feel free to alter anything that needs it ;)
I'd normally give a thorough review, but since I've commented above and, with your permission, addressed the issues I would have raised, this seems superfluous. However, even if my changes are OK, you'll still need to proofread the article to ensure I haven't messed up the facts. If you let me know when this has been done, I'll be happy to pass the article. All the best, EyeSereneTALK 18:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me. I corrected the confusing sentence, and restored the one which I think has relevant detail.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  04:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA on hold

message: The picture of Russians fallen down to the mercy of the Polish king, whose horses stand on the Russian banners is obviously allegoric. It needs to be said so in the caption. For the similar problem, see 
Talk:Muscovite-Lithuanian Wars#Propagandistic pictures and the solution at Muscovite-Lithuanian Wars#Livonian War. --Irpen 03:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the older picture is definitely allegoric, most obviously because of the angels in the sky.  I have no problem with making this clear in the caption, to make sure that no readers are led to believe that angels intervened in the battle.  As for the second picture, the resolution is so low that it is hard to tell what is going on.  I would just remove it, as it does not add much to the article, unless a higher quality version can be found. Balcer 03:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Why are you so certain this has not happened?  Do you really believe that the Poles of that time were incapable of desecrating the Russian banners in this way?  Anyway, as I said, we should state in the caption that the picture is allegoric, as we agree on this, though for different reasons (which is fine).  Balcer 04:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: "The Russian [...] were allowed to take their banners (after a ceremony in which they were laid before king Władysław" 
"Laid before the king" is not the same at "trampled by king's horse" but certainly calls for that allegory. --Irpen 04:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference contains an account of the campaign by an anonymous Polish source.  The painting is another source in this case, so to speak.  You are thus claiming that the anonymous account by some Polish soldier must be correct (and complete), and what the painting from roughly the same time shows must be incorrect.  That may well be but it is not obvious to me at all, as you insisted above.  Anyway, it seems we are arguing over details.  Let's just add a note that the painting is allegorical and be done with this issue. Balcer 05:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Allegoric pics

message: Can we replace dubious references by more academic ones. I see the "Rickard" ref linked to a site of non-established reputation. If it is merely a reprint form a reliable source posted here, please say so. Also, what's the deal with Rzeczpospolita (newspaper) in the reflist? How is that acceptable for the material about 400 years ago? --Irpen 04:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As you can see here, the author is a reliable historian. As for the Rzeczpospolita, it seems you have failed to note that it is a history supplement published in cooperation with a history magazine, written by many reliable historians.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  04:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Problem with refs

message: Thanks for the proofread and corrections ;) I have now passed Smolensk War as a Good Article, and listed it as such on the Good Articles page under History > War and military > Conflicts, battles and military exercises.
Great work, and well done! EyeSereneTALK 17:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA pass 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Smolensk War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927023704/http://www.portal-slovo.ru/download/history/Volkov11.pdf to http://www.portal-slovo.ru/download/history/Volkov11.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:26, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified