Talk:Tsar Alexei's campaign of 1654–1655/GA1
GA review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Nominator: Nihil novi nisi (talk · contribs) 14:10, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 03:19, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
Seeing as I have just reviewed the nominator's Battle of the Basya River article, I will look at this one as well. Comments to follow in due course. Zawed (talk) 03:19, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
Having looked at this in some detail, it suffers similar issues to those identified for the Battle of the Basya River article such that I believe that at least some GA critria are not met.
Criteria 1a and 1b
- There are numerous grammar and clarity issues throughout, mostly of a nature similar to those found in the Battle of the Basya River article. It needs a decent CE.
Criteria 2a
- The sourcing for this article is a little more diverse than Battle of the Basya River but still heavy reliant on one reference: Bobiatyński. I also note a mixture of citation styles, with sfn used for majority of sources but not for all, e.g. cites 18, 19, 48, 160 to 162
Criteria 3a
- There appears to be a lack of context at points, with individuals/events mentioned without explanation. Some examples:
- Khmelnitsky got into a state of "dizziness from success,": who was Khmelnitsky?
- Now his task was to show Alexis...: Alexis is the Tsar, but the Tsar has already been introduced but without this name. Also, shouldn't it be Alexei, given the name of the article?
- made a deal with John Casimir.[note 2] The Cossack Hetman...: who are Casimir and Hetman?
- the entire sicha: what is a sicha?
- The article lacks a conclusion/aftermath section
This is quite a long way from GA with a lot of work required to bring it up to scratch on the criteria discussed. That should be done outside of the GA process and accordingly I propose to fail this one in a few days. When the remedial work is complete, it can be renominated for GA. Zawed (talk) 09:24, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- No response from nominator, who had not edited for 51 days. In light of the lack of response, and state of article, failing this nomination. Zawed (talk) 09:54, 17 April 2025 (UTC)