This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article was copy edited by Twofingered Typist, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 22 December 2020.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors
Ok, I was ready for anything but not that. @Adamdaley: wich type of image does it need? Because I'm pretty sure that existing images in that article illustrates fortress in a best way possible: drawing of fortress when it existed, plan of fortress and few photos of remains. If you know what can I add to it, please specify. Thanks in advance. Redwanna talk?07:58, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing of some sentences could be indicated more clearly
I considered trying to undertake the Good Article Review (presumably with input from more experienced editors, as it would be my first GAR), but may not have the ability to easily read the Russian sources; nonetheless, I wanted to bring up one issue that stood out. Many sentences throughout the article do not have citations (directly) after them. For example, in It was built in 33 days, and its construction seems to have been very important to Novgorod. A chronicler says that, "all the nobles of Novgorod" took part in the process. Five kochansky voivods (heads of districts) led the construction.[2], am I right to infer that [2] (Кирпичников p. 181) is the source for all of the sentences? I don't want to nitpick, and I have seen articles which took that approach (and perhaps it is the result of other editors preferring that approach?), but I think this would be better indicated by repeating a short name+year+page-{{sfn}} after each sentence (or using <ref name="foo"/>), to make it more obvious what the source of each sentence was and to future-proof the article s it requires less constant vigilance to keep the sourcing intelligible going forward: as things stand, if someone were to change the first of those sentences to It was built in 33 days. The principal building material was foobar.[entirely new source] Its construction seems to have been very important to Novgorod., the connection between "It was built in 33 days" and [2] would be lost. -sche (talk) 16:17, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"The fortress was completely rebuilt after the Novgorod Republic was incorporated into the Grand Duchy of Moscow. Following the construction of Ivangorod Fortress, Yam Fortress lost its military significance." Add dates to both of these sentences for context.
"According to the chronicles..." What chronicles? I'm assuming the Novgorod Chronicle, but that should be made clear.
Kirpichnikov in his book does not point to any of chronicles, he simply calls the whole chapter "The features of chronicle history". I'm not sure if setting it on a Novgorod chronicles would be appropriate even if it was remarked in the book's sources. Redwanna talk?18:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Despite the fact that ambassadors tried to present this attack as an independent raid by an uncontrolled warlord..." Ambassadors from where? It's unclear.
"He sent an army lead by Pontus De la Gardie to capture all the fortresses in that region. His main task was to capture Novgorod." Whose main task was to capture Novgorod, John III or Pontus? The consecutive use of "He" and "His" leaves this unclear.
" Before September 28, 1581, when Yam was captured, Koporye, Korela, Ivangorod and Narva were defeated. But after a three-day siege in 1590, Russia recaptured Yam." This can be re-worded to be clearer: "Kororye, Korela, Ivangorod, and Narva were all defeated before Yam was captured on September 28, 1581. Swedish forces held Yam until 1590, when Russia recaptured it after a three-day siege."
"The now-Swedish form of the town name—Yamburg—did not bother anyone." Does this mean that when the Russians re-captured the town they kept the name "Yamburg"? If so it should clearly say that, as the current wording is not the best way to show that.
Both "Catherine the Great" and "Catherine II" are used in the "Russian Empire times" section. As they are the same person I'd suggest just using one form of her name to avoid confusion.
It would be helpful to provide English translations of the bibliography here; use the "trans-title" format if you do so. I would also consider translating the author names into English, but that isn't required (though sorting them alphabetically, either via Russian or English is encouraged).
Check duplicate links; there are several that come up: Luga River, Koporye, Narva, Detinets, are some examples. Link their first use in the body of the article, but after that they don't need to be linked again.
This is an interesting article, and I see that you also wrote the Russian version of it, so I'm impressed that you have been able to translate that and bring it into English as well. I don't have a lot of comments here, and nothing too serious to resolve, so once the above are addressed will be happy to pass. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
