The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 01:36, 24 April 2009 [1].
1(c) - referencing. Also Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Background: promoted in 2005 and not reviewed since. Notifications: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Poland [2], User:Halibutt [3], User:Piotrus [4], User:Logologist [5], Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history [6]
Close paraphrasing from website:
[7]. Copyrighted.
The Wayback Machine version dates to 2003.
[8]
Close paraphrasing examples:
Two of these have inline cites to ref #1. Please post the portions of ref#1 that support those cites, and an English translation.
Even if the paraphrasing were fixed, the source problem would remain. The website author, Bozenna Kirkpatrick, has no presence in Google books [9] or Google scholar [10]. .ca is not a reliable source: see [11] - Electronic Museum is supported entirely by donations from Sponsors and Visitors - like You !
Another sourcing issue: 17 refs go to this website: [12] by this author. He's a chemist and an amateur historian. Hetmanusa.org is the website of the Polish Militaria Collectors Association. I don't think this is an FA-quality source.
Stats: The Russian troop numbers in the ref don't match the ones in the article. The article states 104,000–140,000[1], but Ref #1 gives 104-114 tys. żołnierzy Armii Czerwonej. Novickas ( talk) 16:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC) reply
Could someone run thru this with a plagiarism tool? Here's a couple more:
Image problems:
File:Polish-soviet war 1920 Aftermath of Battle of Warsaw.jpg and
File:Polish-soviet war 1920 Polish defences near Milosna, August.jpg do not have sources. The copyright status of
File:Tukhachevsky-mikhail-2.jpg is uncertain; unfortunately, I'm not sure how to investigate per-WWII Soviet copyrights. Can {{PD-Russia-2008}} be used?
DrKiernan (
talk) 13:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
So back to referencing. More opinions please, on whether the article uses high-quality sources representing a comprehensive survey of the topic. Twenty inline cites to this [18] website by Witold L. Here's his bio. [19]. Surely there are many more scholarly references out there.
If it were a comprehensive survey of all the literature, it would contain, for instance, an alternative to L's "Stalin, in search of personal glory, wanted to capture the besieged, important industrial center of Lwów." Richard Pipes et al. are convinced that Stalin, in not moving towards Warsaw, was acting on Lenin's orders [20]. Another contradiction here, I think: this book states the Soviets accidentally destroyed their own communications center [21]. The article, ref'd to L., says the 203rd Uhlan Regiment destroyed it. I'm not an expert on the topic, but a little digging has convinced me that its review suffered from a lack of knowledgeable editors. The reviewers didn't catch the plagiarism, for starters. Novickas ( talk) 16:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC) reply
The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 01:36, 24 April 2009 [1].
1(c) - referencing. Also Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Background: promoted in 2005 and not reviewed since. Notifications: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Poland [2], User:Halibutt [3], User:Piotrus [4], User:Logologist [5], Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history [6]
Close paraphrasing from website:
[7]. Copyrighted.
The Wayback Machine version dates to 2003.
[8]
Close paraphrasing examples:
Two of these have inline cites to ref #1. Please post the portions of ref#1 that support those cites, and an English translation.
Even if the paraphrasing were fixed, the source problem would remain. The website author, Bozenna Kirkpatrick, has no presence in Google books [9] or Google scholar [10]. .ca is not a reliable source: see [11] - Electronic Museum is supported entirely by donations from Sponsors and Visitors - like You !
Another sourcing issue: 17 refs go to this website: [12] by this author. He's a chemist and an amateur historian. Hetmanusa.org is the website of the Polish Militaria Collectors Association. I don't think this is an FA-quality source.
Stats: The Russian troop numbers in the ref don't match the ones in the article. The article states 104,000–140,000[1], but Ref #1 gives 104-114 tys. żołnierzy Armii Czerwonej. Novickas ( talk) 16:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC) reply
Could someone run thru this with a plagiarism tool? Here's a couple more:
Image problems:
File:Polish-soviet war 1920 Aftermath of Battle of Warsaw.jpg and
File:Polish-soviet war 1920 Polish defences near Milosna, August.jpg do not have sources. The copyright status of
File:Tukhachevsky-mikhail-2.jpg is uncertain; unfortunately, I'm not sure how to investigate per-WWII Soviet copyrights. Can {{PD-Russia-2008}} be used?
DrKiernan (
talk) 13:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
So back to referencing. More opinions please, on whether the article uses high-quality sources representing a comprehensive survey of the topic. Twenty inline cites to this [18] website by Witold L. Here's his bio. [19]. Surely there are many more scholarly references out there.
If it were a comprehensive survey of all the literature, it would contain, for instance, an alternative to L's "Stalin, in search of personal glory, wanted to capture the besieged, important industrial center of Lwów." Richard Pipes et al. are convinced that Stalin, in not moving towards Warsaw, was acting on Lenin's orders [20]. Another contradiction here, I think: this book states the Soviets accidentally destroyed their own communications center [21]. The article, ref'd to L., says the 203rd Uhlan Regiment destroyed it. I'm not an expert on the topic, but a little digging has convinced me that its review suffered from a lack of knowledgeable editors. The reviewers didn't catch the plagiarism, for starters. Novickas ( talk) 16:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC) reply