Talk:Battle of Kolubara
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
A fine article, but you should mention the timely arrival of French artillery ammunition (75mm shells) and frentic attempts to shorten theese shells in time for the counterattack. This was done in Kragujevac war factory. The shells were 2mm too long (by some mistake) for Serbian guns. I think this was also an important factor in this victory.
Veljko Stevanovich —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.137.119.18 (talk • contribs) 2005-09-30T17:29:08
- WP:NPOV throughout article. Heavily slanted to Serbian POV.LeadSongDog (talk) 14:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Rollbacks
Please do not roll back other peoples edits to correct ip vandals, just revert their specific changes.LeadSongDog (talk) 21:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Ok, have done so Shipseggsbasket (talk) 11:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Neutrality Disputed Tag
The article contains de Neutrality Disputed Tag, but the Talk page does not show specific reasons for it. Please note NPOV Dispute policy, which strongly discourages driving-by tagging and recommends the disputes to be discussed on the talk page, pointing to specific issues. Since no such discussion is shown, I think it is fair to remove the tag. M.Campos (talk) 01:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- It's hardly drive-by. See my comment above. I'd have thought even a cursory read of the article would make it clear that it is heavily slanted to the Serbian perspective. If it`s really necessary, though I can go through it line by line and add tags. If you want to make a contribution, identifying some quality references in English would be a big step forward. LeadSongDog (talk) 04:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I did not intended to be offensive with "driving by tagging".
You are pointing at one major problem: the information are not sourced.
I propose the following proceedure, which I believe matches fully the WP policies: if you have factual errors to point out, you may chalenge the information. The bourden of proof lays on whom placed the statement, and if no credible source is stated, you may remove the chalenged point.
If you believe the problem are not factual errors, but the bias lays in emphasis given to specific points, or in language used (as often happens in controvertial articles), you are welcome to rewrite the text and present it here on talk page for discussion.
I am afraid the line by line approach is the only way to have the article improved. Tagging is a kind of last resource when an agreement cannot be achieved, and is higly unsatisfactory to the reader. If there is no discussion about in the talk page, he does not even have the opportunity to understand which are the disputed points. The whole text, even the parts that are correct stay under suspicion, being almost useless. 201.82.253.148 (talk) 13:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, I'm on the verge of putting it up for WP:AFD. As far as the article shows, it could be pure fiction and we wouldn't know. The other-language articles are similarly unsourced or poorly sourced. Have a look.LeadSongDog (talk) 14:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Copyvio
It appears that sr:Колубарска_битка was the first wiki article on this topic, then it was copied and extended elsewhere. Unfortunately the oldest content there seems to have copyvios from this source (The Serbian royal family website) that it didn't cite.LeadSongDog (talk) 20:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- See this discussion diff for dismissal of the copyvio.LeadSongDog (talk) 22:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
