Talk:Battle of Baia

message: I have reviewed this article according to the GA criteria. Please fix the following issues and I'll pass the article:
#"The Wallachians rushed to the scene with 7,000 men and together with the Hungarian garrison battled the Moldavians and the Turks for eight days, and managed to defend the town while wounding Stephen for life, in his foot, with a shrapnel." Consider removing "for life", it doesn't seem to flow well within the sentence. Reword to "Stephen in his foot with a shrapnel." with no commas.
#"In 1465, when Dracula was imprisoned in Hungary, Stephen again advanced towards Chilia with a large force and siege weapons; but instead of besieging the fortress, he showed the garrison—who favoured the Polish King—a letter in which the King requires them to surrender the fortress;" All of the other hyphens in the article have a space before and after them, change this one also to ensure that the article is uniform (there's another one in the next paragraph). Also, "this they do" should be reworded.
#"Moldavia was a Polish fief" Add a wikilink for "fief". Also, all of the single dates and years don't need wikilinks, just ones that include the month, day, and year should be wikilinked.
#"The men were told to be prepared for battle and guards were sent to guard strategical points." Change to strategic points.
#"there they decided to dig the 500 canons and other treasures" What does dig the canons mean? Elaborate a little more. Also cannons is spelled differently in the infobox, and in this statement, and also in the Preparations for war section. Choose one and stick with it.
#"The Moldavian-German Chronicles say that a certain Isaia failed" Remove the bold font.
The article is very informative and doesn't have to many issues that need to be fixed. Please address the above issues within seven days and the article will be passed. If you have any questions or when you are done let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 19:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA on hold

message: I have passed this article according to the requirements of the GA criteria. I removed the wikilinks for the single years and dates, take a look at my change so you can see what I did. Good job on the article, and make sure it maintains its high quality by ensuring that all new information is properly sourced. If you have the time please consider reviewing an article or two at GAC to help with the large backlog. Again, good job and happy editing! --Nehrams2020 19:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! I forgot about the wikilinks for the single years. I understand this is relatively a new rule. I don't think it existed at the time when I worked on the article. --Thus Spake Anittas 19:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA passed

message: As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Conflicts, battles and military exercises" articles. For some reason, this article looks familiar... Anyway, I reviewed the recent contributions and it hasn't decrease in quality since I passed it in June. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I made a minor correction, but there were no major problems with the article. Just a quick note, if you can, determine if wagons is spelled that way as in the source (in "huge booty of tents, waggons and guns,"), if not it may just be a misspelling. Also, consider creating an article for Moldavian-Hungarian Wars (as seen in the infobox) if you have enough information that is properly sourced. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have edited the article history to reflect this review. Regards, --Nehrams2020 04:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Annals were translated to British English, which is the reason why wagons is spelled with two "g."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anittas (talk • contribs) 06:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Sweeps Review: Pass

message: According to Hungarian sources the rebellion (of Count Szapolyai of Szepes, and of John Szentgyorgyi voivode of Transylvania) was crushed authoritatively almost immediately, there were no hard times for the King ... and to treat the Transylvanian nobles with scorn their ransom was cut to 66 Florins ... but this happened before the Moldavian campaign ... One year later the King forgave them ...  I've never heard of 400,000 florins. As far as I know It was impossible to collect such a huge amount of gold from Transylvania. (the annual revenues of Hunyadi was around 800,000 florins) ... regards --fz22 09:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The source is Jan Dlugozs. I will add it to the section. Here is the source for that claim and also for the claim on 500 guns. If you want to buy the book, let me know and I will refer you to a place where you can order it online.
When, moving on, the Hungarians again reach the hills they find the road barricaded with tree-trunks and, after burning their three-horse waggons and burying all 500 of their guns, so as to deny them to the enemy, they manage to escape. Some of the Hungarian standards are captured and these are sent to King Casimir in Wilno as proof of Stephen's victory, which has provided a huge booty of tents, waggons and guns. Back in Hungary, the King imposes a fine of 400,000 florins, to be paid in gold, on the knights and citizens of Transylvania for having deserted him. This money he uses to organize another and larger army, mainly of foreign mercenaries.
And just because you disagree with the source doesn't mean that we shall remove it. Perhaps you would want me to blank the whole page, but it ain't happening. --Thus Spake Anittas 15:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  you are wrong ...  i never had the slightest intention to remove a reference to a source ... Dlugosz sources were wrong ... 400,000 florin was a fabulous wealth in the mid 15th ... I've rechecked the annual revenue of Hunyadi. It was only 500,000-600,000 florins (in a lucky year could run high to 900,000). (While the King of France had 1,8 million-4 million) The price payed by Hunyadi for the Holy Crown was "only" 80,000 (considered to be also a huge sum) ... --fz22 17:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, sure, everyone was wrong. Corvinus spent his 200,000 florins that he received from the pope just to arrange or his marriage with some princess, instead of investing the money in defending the region from the Ottomans, so I wonder just how much 400k was. You keep talking about Hunyady, but that was an earlier era. --Thus Spake Anittas 17:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  Can you bring me sources on this emblezzement? And what about your "anti Ottoman defence" complaint I don't think you would be pleased with it :) (IMO the only chance to stop the Ottomans was during King Sigismund, at the line of the Danube, by exterminating the Romanian wobly boiars, and establishing a buffer zone  securing the Danube with free soldier elements, like the Szeklers, Cumans, and later the Serbs) ... --fz22 (talk) 11:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text:  I speak about King Matthias ... he never called himself Corvinus. Not even by his Hungarian fellow contemporaries. His name was Hunyadi Matyas ... But this is offtopic here, you can use Corvinus as well, i will understand it :) ... Can you bring me a source for this 200,000 florins_ It was fabulous trust me (even Matthias life worth about 80,000) ... IMO Matthias did everything possible in order to save the country. --fz22 19:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transylvanian rebelion vs 400,000 florins 

message: Hi, as part of the A-Class review, I have a few issues.
* The Hungarian ambition of seizing control over Moldavia did not end there This does not follow on from anything and seems a bit pov ish, could you make it a bit more neutral, and relevant.
*divide the country between them two Not good grammatically.
*The Wallachians rushed to the scene with 7,000 men and together with the Hungarian garrison battled the Moldavians and the Turks for eight days, defeating them and wounding Stephen in his foot with a shrapnel[17]-an injury which would hasten his death. Can this not be split up into different sentences, the structure at the moment is not very good. 
**Not really, the structure of the sentence would become even worse. Why actually the structure is not good at the moment?
*can the See also hatnote be included in the article.
**where?
*The background might need a subsection to split it up.
*and demanded Stephen to leave it over to him. This needs to be reworded.
*started a terrible uprising in which Corvinus had a difficult time in putting an end to Needs rewording, and remove the terrible per WP:WEASEL.
*so the Moldavians could not lay their hands on them. ???
**I can't find this, could you help me please?
*Per WP:MOSNUM, individual dates such as 10 January should be linked, e.g. 10 January.
Generally, there seems to be a slight bias in the article, just needs a run-through.  Woodym555 17:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split from A-Class review 

message: I think even this 15-20,000 men army is an overestimation ... pure maths: 
* it was calculated that tha army of William the Conqueror (7000 men + 3000 horse) needed 4000t of nutritment / month. 
* the lenght of the army (with just 10,000 horsemen  x 3 horses each) was more than 20km, without wagons (how many? John of Hunyadi army's had 5000 wagons during the Long Campaign) ... impossible to supervise  ...--fz22 (talk) 09:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  strenght2 (Hungarian army) 

message: I have noticed that the "result" category lists victory for both sides and for both sides of the argument it lists a series of what appears to be primary sources. In effect this article seems to have engaged in original research by quoting mediaeval documents (i.e. primary sources) as opposed to secondary sources (articles on the subject in historical journals, texbooks, history books etc.). That is violates WP:NOR in a flagrant way. I understand that the mediaeval sources do not agree on who won. But modern day scholarship probably has a more consistant view of the matter. 
And actually, let me make this more clear. I expect someone to modify the section by giving an adequate source within a month. Otherwise I'll simply delete both versions. We are not historians we cannot interpret primary sources ourselves; that's original research and WP does NOT do that. Please read again WP:NOR in order to be clear on that. 79.112.59.92 (talk) 02:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  We're doing it wrong! 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Battle of Baia. 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/20061114112449/http://www.stefancelmare.ro:80/izvoare.htm to http://www.stefancelmare.ro/izvoare.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:10, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified