Talk:Jan Henryk Dąbrowski/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Quadell (talk · contribs) 23:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Nominator: Piotrus

Regarding my reviewing style, issues I identify below will be prepended by the number of the relevant GA criterion. As they are resolved, I will cross out the issue number.

• 1a: The article body says there are different figures for his date of birth. But the lead and infobox give it unambiguously as 29 August 1755, and the persondata specifically says it was 2 August 1755. Perhaps these should simply say August 1755? Also, the text says he died on 6 June 1818, but the lead, the infobox, and the persondata, say he died 6 July 1818.
  • Removing the day could break infobox templates; I am not sure how to deal with that. July was an error, good catch, corrected to June. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
    • This is odd. Template:Infobox military person says to use {{birth date}} for the birth date (if known), but Template:Birth date says "Do not use this template when the person’s exact date of birth is disputed or unknown." When the birth date is not known exactly, it advises we use {{Birth year and age}}... but that's not right, since it assumes the person is still alive. I don't know what to do when the date is not known exactly. You could either omit the birth date, or type out "2 or 29 August 1755". – Quadell ^(talk) 15:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
      • The lead, infobox, and persondata template all state a specific date of birth, when the sources don't support such certainty. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
        • All right, I expanded on the date of birth. Per PSB, I clarified that the 29th is his own account, and the 2nd is based on a church document. For whatever reason, modern sources seem to go with 29th. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:15, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
          • Great, that's well sourced. I put the information in a footnote; I hope that's acceptable to you. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:40, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• 1a: There are some grammatical errors in the sentences beginning "He fought in the War...", "The Grodno Sejm, held...", "This proved to be more successful...", and "Their defeat was completed..."
  • Tried to fix them, please see if I did. If there's still something wrong, could you be so kind and fix what I missed? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Yes, these instances are fixed. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:02, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• 1b: Assuming Poland does not have an official "National Hero" designation, calling him a "national hero" is a peacock term.
  • I'd like to argue this is acceptable. George Washington article uses the word hero several times, too, just for one example. If you think this needs a cite, we could add Letters from Prison and Other Essays. University of California Press. 1 January 1987. p. 164. ISBN 978-0-520-90858-1. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Tricky. I've asked for wider input at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Jan Henryk D.C4.85browski and the term .22national_hero.22. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:02, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
      • I've added a short section on remembrance; I'd certainly expanded it for A/FA (particularly since all I can see online are snippets), but I think the word hero is justified - it seems to be used by many reliable sources, and I am not seeing any significant criticism that would allow us to say that any due weight publication is denying him this common monicker. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
        • Commentary at the NPOV noticeboard seems to suggest it's okay to use the term, so long as it's cited. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

• 1b: This lead does not adequately summarize all sections of the article body, as required by WP:LEAD.
  • Expanded. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
    • That's now an adequate lead. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

• 1b: A "Further reading" section should not reproduce links already in the article body, per WP:FURTHER. Two of the links are already included in the article, and the third (Greater Poland Uprising (1794)) really should be. I don't think this see also section is needed at all.
  • Replaced with more generic history of Poland background links. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
    • I guess you can tell I actually meant a "See also" section. (I must have been in a hurry.) Anyway, it's now fixed. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

• 1b: Per MOS:PARAGRAPHS, "The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized, since they can inhibit the flow of the text". This article contains three single-sentence paragraphs. (Oddly, some material has been commented out of the body text. Is this intentional?)
  • Merged one, others are really separate, theme-wise. Comment out unreferenced content removed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
    • I expanded one. The last one is fine. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

• 3a: This article does not link to VIII Corps (Grande Armée), which has additional information that could be useful in this article, especially the "1812–1813" section. In addition, there is a lot of relevant information in the Polish Legions (Napoleonic period) article which is missing from here. There is also a little information in Greater Poland Uprising (1794) that could be included here.
  • I found and added refs that allow us to link to VIII Corps (Grande Armée). I don't think that information from the other articles is relevant enough to warrant adding here (it could be undue weight given detail), but if there are any specific facts you think we should add here, please let me know. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Here are the examples I've found of sourced content in the Polish Legions (Napoleonic period) article, which I think deserve mention here. Let me know if you disagree; otherwise, go ahead and include them.

• The Polish Legions were also known as the "Dąbrowski Legions".

• Nice factoid, added. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:15, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• He went to Milan, as well as Paris, to talk with Napoleon in 1796.

• Minor factoid, but is in PSB, so added. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:15, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• "The Polish soldiers serving in the Dąbrowski Legion were granted Lombardian citizenship and were paid the same wage as other troops. They were allowed to use their own unique Polish-style uniforms, with some French and Lombardian symbols, and were commanded by other Polish speakers."

• Seems relevant to the Legions, but not necessarily to D.'s bio. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:15, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• In 1797, "Dąbrowski lobbied for a plan to push through to the Polish territories in Galicia, but that was blocked by Napoleon."

• Nice factoid, added. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:15, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• "In May 1798 the Poles helped the French to secure the Papal States, putting down some peasant revolts, and garrisoned Rome, which they entered on 3 May. Dąbrowski obtained a number of trophies from a Roman representative, that the Polish king, Jan III Sobieski, had sent there after his victory over the Ottoman Empire at the siege of Vienna in 1683; amongst these was an Ottoman standard which subsequently became part of the Legions' colors, accompanying them from then on."

• Nice factoid, added. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:15, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• Dąbrowski was wounded at Trebia, and only two of his five battalions survived the battle.

• Added a note he was wounded there, confirmed with PSB. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:15, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• After the legionnaires' disappointment, but before the Haitian revolution, "Dąbrowski remained in command, and reorganized both Legions at Milan into two 6,000-strong units in March 1801."

• Sentence added. To be honest, I feel the years 1801-1803 need to be expanded in the article, but sources are scarce (PSB doesn't discuss them, others are available to me only as snippets). Reading the snippets it seems N. relieved D. of Legions command, and then decided to throw them away, but I don't have good sources to discuss this in the article for now. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:15, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• More info about recapturing Greater Poland from Prussia: "French armies, including the Legion units, defeated the Prussians in Saxony at the battle of Jena and Poles under Dąbrowski entered former Polish territories (near the city of Poznań)"

• Not sure if this is needed in this article? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:15, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

And here are the examples I've found of sourced content in the Greater Poland Uprising (1794) article, which I think deserve mention here.

• In that uprising, Dąbrowski's forces captured Bydgoszcz and entered Pomerania almost unopposed. He evacuated Wielkopolska and make his way into central Poland.
• The Prussians recaptured most of the gains made by the insurrectionists in the previous few months.
• Dąbrowski unsuccessfully tried to convince Tomasz Wawrzecki to move the insurrection from central Poland to the Prussian partition.

It seems to me that many of these facts are important enough to include in this article. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps; I don't have access to the offline sources cited. I am a bit iffy to expand on D.'s role in the KU without being able to read the relevant sources myself. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:15, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Those are wonderful additions. I agree that it's risky to add information when you can't see the sources. I figured you would know better than I would which of these are most relevant. I have copy-edited your additions, and I have no further completeness concerns. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:40, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• 3a: The article should have a "legacy" section that gives info about the Arc de Triomphe, the Polish national anthem, and any other information about his legacy and later reputation.
  • Done, through I will be the first to note it is not sufficient - curse copyright for making 99% of Polish works snippet-view only. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
    • I think that, for the purposes of the GA criteria, this article "addresses the main aspects of the topic" (in regards to legacy), even if it doesn't fully cover that particular aspect. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

• 6b: The caption for the Coat of Arms image does not describe which coat of arms is shown or why it's relevant.
  • Fixed, I hope. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   All problems have been resolved.

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   All problems have been resolved.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   All problems have been resolved.

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   All problems have been resolved.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   This article passes all our GA criteria, and I'm happy to promote it. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:40, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Ping User:Quadell - replies left to all issues, I hope. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Updated, Piotrus. Still a little left to do. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Ping User:Quadell - replies left again. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:15, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

All good. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:40, 7 December 2013 (UTC)