Vilnius Castle Complex was one of the Art and architecture good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the
good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be
renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lithuania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Lithuania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LithuaniaWikipedia:WikiProject LithuaniaTemplate:WikiProject LithuaniaLithuania articles
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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
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 articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Museums, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
museums on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MuseumsWikipedia:WikiProject MuseumsTemplate:WikiProject MuseumsMuseums articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Historic sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
historic sites on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Historic sitesWikipedia:WikiProject Historic sitesTemplate:WikiProject Historic sitesHistoric sites articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Poland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the
project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
I think the title should be really
Vilnius Castles since there are 3 castles: upper, lower and kreivoji (btw, I am looking for a more proper translation for this one).
Renata19:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)reply
I believe that name is right, cuz Vilnius Castle is a whole as such taking all in one. Maybe Complex as main?
M.K.19:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)reply
About Curved castle - it should have separate history part also, but there are only few facts on it; several sentences tops. Maybe merge cuz stub will spoil article?
M.K.
and another note - upper castle as such is called gediminas castle not gediminas tower
M.K.
No it's not. It's a popular shortcut, yes, but it is not Gediminas castle, it's upper castle. Gediminas have only the tower (more or less the only thing that's left from the castle).
Renata01:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)reply
I do not argue that Upper Castle term is bad or not scientific (I would not used in article if I thought so), but Gediminas Castle term refers to whole Upper Castle not only its tower.
M.K.07:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)reply
I am thinking – do we need write separate article on
Vilnius BastilleVilnius Fortress is better I think or it is enough to make separate section of Vilnius Castle Complex? I am personally leaning to write separate article on
Vilnius Bastille and make it as main article and used it as I did with Cathedral within Castle Complex articale. What other editors thinks about it?
M.K.18:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)reply
The thing is that basteja is not really connected to the 3 castles. It was build much later, away from the other castles. So I am not even sure it belongs to this article (it's not a castle, that's for sure). BTW, I really like the way it is translated
here ->
Vilnius Artillery Bastion. Or are we talking about two different things?
Renata00:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)reply
There needs to be something written about all the rivers: Vilnia, the one that's now underground. Because now the plan shows the territory completely surrounded by water, but there is nothing mentioned of that sort in the article.
Renata14:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)reply
I inserted some notes, but feel free to do more if you need to. BTW, is it worth to write in this articale about Vilnius Cathed. excavations - Barbora Rad. tomb as well as others? Do I need mention that the treasures were mured in walls?
M.K.14:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Doing some grammatical edits - Novickas 16:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Questions
I'm having some problems with the arsenals. In re New Arsenal: the article mentioned that it was "established in one of the oldest castle buildings in the 18th century" but later in the same paragaph it states that "during the 16th century its tower featured a beacon that guided ships in the Neris river", an anachronism.
Re Old arsenal - it states that "In contrast to New arsenal, which was adopted for this need in 18 th. century, Old arsenal was already established in 15 th. century". Does that mean that the old arsenal had already been built by then? If so, what are the suggested date ranges for its creation?
Novickas 14:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Answers
New Arsenal was adapted to Arsenal needs in 18 th century. It was adopted/established in one of the oldest castle buildings, which prior 18 th century was not used for Arsenal and only in 18 th century building was proclaimed as Aresnal. This old building (which in 18th became Arsenal), at least from 16 th century, had and beacon.
Old arsenal, as such, was used for arsenal needs in 15 th century, while New Arsenal only in 18 th. Old Arsenal of 15 th century disintegrated and undergone big reconstructions in 16 th. Is it a bit better explanation ?
M.K.14:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)reply
This GA nomination is on hold for 7 days for these reasons: there should be no space between punctuation and a footnote, multiple footnotes should not have a space between them, and single years (ex 1327) do not get wikilinked. Let me know when you've fixed this.Discuss the architectural styles too.
Rlevse12:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)reply
Hello, I fixed space between punctuation and a footnote problem, I just a bit wondering - should I remove all links from the single dates? And could you be a bit specific about discussion on architectural styles, because article holds information on building transformation from one style to other.
M.K.12:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)reply
Architecture--oh yeah-;). Last tweak--wikilink wherever possible. In this article's case, every century has an article on wiki, so link them (first occurence only of course). For example, 10th century should be linked as
10th century. When you get this done, I'll make it GA.
Rlevse17:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)reply
GA attained, for further improvements, consider expanding what attractions and features exist in the modern day complex/museum/etc.
Rlevse23:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)reply
The nazi kultur in Poland - Page 117 by Poland. Ministerstwo Informacji (Polish Ministry of Information) - History - 1945 - 220 pages.
This one's a nice example too: Acta Poloniae historica - Page 180 by Instytut Historii (Polska Akademia Nauk) - History - 1995
And another: Skarb litewski za pierwszych dwu Wazów, 1587-1648: 1587-1648 - Page 115 by Anna Filipczak-Kocur - Lithuania - 1994 - 144 pages
Plus: Poland and Its Curiosities: (a Tourists' Guide) by Mieczysław Orłowicz - History - 1927 - 118 pages [ "Sorry, this page's content is restricted" ] Too bad it's restricted, a 1927 Polish Tourist Guide might be enjoyable reading.
Dr. Dan (
talk)
01:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Radek, since you neglected to mention that the Cambridge History of Poland mentions
Wilno on three seperate entries (all on the same page, pg. 272), in the second set of examples, it's only fair to point this out. And let's face it, Mieczysław Orłowicz's 1927, "Polish Tourist Guide," is probably a better example to prove your point.
Dr. Dan (
talk) 20:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Dr. Dan (
talk)
20:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Does questioning whether or not the 1927 Polish "Tourist Guide" is a reason to include, or not to include, the Polish geographic description
"Zespół Zamkowy w Wilnie," in the lead of this
article an issue about "cherry picking", or is something else going on, Radeksz?
Dr. Dan (
talk)
23:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Is the "Tourist Guide" the only source that Google search turned up? And I'm wondering myself what exactly is going on here. As if somehow adding ZZwW into the article 'pollutes' it. What exactly is the rational for excluding it?
radek (
talk)
23:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Obviously the tourist guide was felt to be a necessary supportive source. The rationale for excluding it is
WP:Undue (in spite of the "tourist guide"). Perhaps if I find a Lithuanian tourist guide concerning
Wawel Castle you'll help me put its Lithuanian name in the lead of that article too. I'm sure I can find some newspaper articles (Lithuanian
tygodniks) to back me up. Besides it was the Royal seat of the
Jagiellons. Or does such a
quid pro quo strike you as unfair?
Dr. Dan (
talk)
01:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Felt by whom? You're the one who brought it up, cherry picked from the Google source. If you find a number of English sources which use the Lithuanian name of Wawel Castle, then I would support the inclusion of it in the relevant article. I have trouble understanding why you would think that I would think this 'unfair'. It's not like I'd get offended just because a Lithuanian phrase occurs in a Poland-related article. I think you're basing your erronous assumptions on the attitudes of the wrong editors.
radek (
talk)
01:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Actually, no, since Piotrus linked to an ENTIRE google search, not that particular work. BTW, "Vavelio pilis" yields 23 hits in GB, none of them in English. "Vavelio Castle" does not match any documents. Even then, if you go and put "Vavelio Pilis" in
Wawel Castle, I, personally would not remove it. That's the difference here, see?
radek (
talk)
01:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)reply
(outdent) Actually, yes, and as impressive as the ENTIRE google search might strike you as, I suspect that the
Jan Dlugosz (didn't incude it, but Dlugosz has got to be the most convincing example to include the Polish translation into English WP ) entry, was a translation from Latin into Polish into English. Or did he write it in English because I'm pretty sure the original was not written in Polish?
Dr. Dan (
talk)
02:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Alright, we've apparantly arrived at that "further discussion is completely pointless" point that all our discussions wind up at.
radek (
talk)
02:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Just a few minor concerns with referencing. The prose is fair but verges on the clumsy at time,. I made a few copy-edits, but you may wish to cast another eye over it. It could stand improvement. On hold for seven days, major contributors and projects will be notified.
Jezhotwells (
talk)
22:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)Yreply
Much improved, I am happy for this to keep its GA status. One minor point - there is a tendency to over-use the term complex. I fixed one instance in the lead. It can be difficult to find a suitable term, but group of buildings, site, compound, structures are possible alternatives, though care needs to be taken to assses which is best for each instance. Congratulations on an interesting artcile.
Jezhotwells (
talk)
11:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)reply
The primary problem with this article is insufficient citations; there are outstanding citation needed tags. At least two references need page needed templates. Titles of Lithuanian references should be translated into English. I am afraid that if those issues are not addressed, the article cannot lay a claim to a modern GA standard. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here16:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)reply
I have just modified 3 external links on
Vilnius Castle Complex. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.