From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: |
| WikiProject Russian history (Rated GA-Class) |
 |
Battle of the Kalka River is part of the WikiProject Russian history, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Russian history. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
 GA |
This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. (add assessment comments) |
| High |
This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. |
| WikiProject Central Asia (Rated GA-Class) |
 |
Battle of the Kalka River is part of WikiProject Central Asia, a project to improve all Central Asia-related articles. This includes but is not limited to Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Xinjiang, Tibet and Central Asian portions of Iran and Russia, region-specific topics, and anything else related to Central Asia. If you would like to help improve this and other Central Asia-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome. |
| GA |
This article has been rated as GA-Class on the Project's quality scale. |
| Mid |
This article has been rated as mid-importance on the Project's importance scale. |
|
|
|
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses. |
|
[edit] Order of events
I was under the impression that first the various Rus princes crossed the river and attacked the Mongol forces before their retreat led to the Kyivan force being attacked and surrounded by Mongols..Goliath74 16:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Numbers
Different numbers are given in regard to the size of the Russian army. Historian Leo de Hartog gives the size of the Russian army as 30,000 while Richard Gabriel claims that the size of the Russian army was 80,000.[21] de Hartog also estimates the size of the Mongol army was 20,000 while Gabriel estimates that it was around 23,000 men.[20]
Its nonsence! No sources give the number of men for both sides. Look into Rus or Mongol chronicles. The numbers in the article is just a fantasy of those researchers. "Academic fantasy"... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 133.41.84.146 (talk) 05:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- I currently have the 'Secery History of the Mongols' which is the Mongol chronincle, so I'll see if I find anything there. Kyriakos (talk) 09:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
：：So what did you find there? The numbers in Strength in the template still look very-very fantasticly. The pripmary sources of both sides of the battle give no numbers of participants. There were no statistics at that time. I wonder how those numbers can be reliable. They turns whole article into a farce.--133.41.84.230 (talk) 09:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- The numbers of both armies in the articles are drawn from several credible sources and are well sourced. Kyriakos (talk) 09:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Russians?
I'm wondering where all the Russians that are mentioned in the article come from? Like "A monument to Daniel of Volhynia, one of the Russian commanders". It was a battle between the Mongol Empire and Kievan Rus' so the use of Russians are probably not so good in the article. Narking (talk) 17:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Speaking of Russians, there doesn't seem to have been any Russian sources used, or Central Asian sources.
- On a different subject, the introduction seems quite long, although I appreciate that relative to the subject is probably necessary.
- All in all, an excellent effort. I studied the battle many years (well, decades) ago, and brings up memories.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I used the term Russians as it was used in my sources but I agree that Kievan Rus' is more historically correct. The problem with the Russian and Central Asian sources is that I don't speak Russian or Central Asian languages, but I am trying to find books by Russians in English as well as trying to get some of the Kievan Rus' chronicles. I try to keep the lead as short as possible but it is nearly impossible to shorten it further with omitting some important details. Kyriakos (talk) 00:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well, the ru-Wiki article[1] is completely unreferenced! I'll see what I can find.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- Cool, I'm also going to find some sources. Kyriakos (talk) 02:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- It's a great article, indeed.Faustian (talk) 02:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] GA Review
- GA review (see here for criteria)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references):
b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
Good Job! You may want to get a template for multiple Wikiprojects, and bring them all up to B-class. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line§ 03:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I wonder how it can be a good article if it fails in two things. Firstly, the theme of the article is a Battle of the Kalka River, not the Campaign of Mongols to the Black sea stepps. The article, however, describe the campign rather than battle. Secondly , the numbers of participants and Mongol causelties are complete fake. No one of primary sources of Rus or Mongol side give them.--133.41.84.230 (talk) 09:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- No, theme of the article is the Battle of the Kalka River. Most GA+ class articles have a background and prelude section explaining the origins of the campaign and what took place before the battle. As for the numbers, I have replied above. Kyriakos (talk) 09:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
