Talk:Jeremi Wiśniowiecki/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jonas Vinther (talk · contribs) 14:38, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written

a. the prose is clear and concise, it respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct

b. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

Here is a list of sentence or grammar errors I found.

1. "Prince at Wiśniowiec, Łubnie and Chorol" - "at" should be replaced by "of".

2. "with Ruthenian and Romanian (Moldavian) origin" - Why the "(Moldavian)" addition?

3. "among others he was made the voivode of Ruthenian Voivodship after 1646" - When writing it like this, it seems that in or after 1646 something notable happened regarding Wiśniowiecki which he haven't heard about so far, so I'd recommend changing "after" to "in".

4. "ruling over lands inhabited by 230,000 of his subjects" - I would suggest changing this sentence to "ruling over lands inhabited by 230,000 people".

5. "His mother, Raina Mohylanka" - The infobox refers to his mother as "Regina Mohyła" so why doesn't the article?

6. Instead of having the caption text say "Raina Mohylanka - his mother" how about "Raina Mohylanka, his mother"?

7. "Jeremi would not budge although he remained on decent terms with the Orthdox Church and supported his uncle Peter Mogila, his collegium and the Orthodox Church avoiding provocative actions, moreover his new status allowed him to persecute Jesuits and other Roman Catholic missionaries" - This needs to be re-written as it's confusing. Did he allow persecution of Jesuits and Catholic missionaries or did his uncle?

8. "His courtier and later, first biographer" - This should be re-written to "His courtier and later biographer".

9. "the Smolensk Campaign of 1633–1634" - The "1633-1934" addition should be changed to "1633-34" per MOS:DATEFORMAT.

10. "from the king of Poland Władysław IV Waza" - The "king" bit should be capitalized.

11. "After the war he engaged in a number of conflicts with neighboring magnates and nobility" - The "nobility" addition should be written like so "nobility's".

12. Soon after his return from the Russian front" - The article has not previously mentioned any Russian front so has is the reader supposed to know which front and which year this was?

13. "Around that time, in 1636, the Sejm opposed the marriage" - This needs to be changed to "Around that time (1636) the Sejm opposed the marriage".

14. "the Sejm opposed the marriage" - To avoid confusion, briefly mention what "Sejm" is.

15. "of Polish king Władysław IV Waza" - "king" should be capitalized.

16. "(as well as its variants, such as knyaz)" - I really don't see the need in the "such as Knyaz" addition. I recommend removing it.

17. "nobility in the Commonwealth was officially equal, and used a different and non-hereditary titles then those found in rest of the world" - The "a" addition should be removed.

18. "which took much of the Sejm time" - The "Sejm" part should be tweaked to "Sejm's".

19. "from 1638 to 1641" - MOS:DATEFORMAT.

20. "(1635–1646)" - MOS:DATEFORMAT.

21. "he gathered 4,000 strong division that participated in putting down of the Ostrzanin Uprising" - The letter "a" is missing in between "gathered" and "4,000".

22. "Together with hetman Potocki" - "hetman" should be capitalized.

23. "in 1640–1646" - MOS:DATEFORMAT.

24. "battle of Ochmatów" - "battle" should be capitalized.

25. "to the Crimean Tatars of Toğay bey (Tuhaj Bej)" - No need for the "(Tuhaj Bej)" addition.

26. "even the king could not" - the "king" bit should be capitalized when followed by "the".

27. "and was forced to return the town to Koniecpolski" - The "to" addition should be replaced with "of".

28. "he refused to support king Władysław's plan" - "king" part should be capitalized.

29. "even though the king offered him" - "king" should be capitalized when followed by "the".

30. "offered him the position of a Field Crown Hetman" - "Field Crown Hetman" is a rank, not a position.

I have now listed 30 sentence or grammar errors and I'm only halfway through. Because of this I'm going to stop pointing out specific errors and recommend the GA-nominator or the other editors who worked on this to glance over this article with grammar-critical eyes one more time before I continue.

Verifiable with no original research

a. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline

b. It provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines

c. It contains no original research

The article uses excellent sources, but why is Hrushevsky and Romański's books not listed under "Sources"? Also, always write the last name of the author first instead of his first name. Lastly, when citing or referring to sources which are not in English, mention that in the reference so it looks like this "Kniazia Jaremy nawrócenie" (in Polish). Kaczmarski. Retrieved 2012-12-27."

Broad in its coverage

a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic

b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail

The article is for sure broad in its coverage, stays on topic, and does not include unnecessary details. However, much of the articles information seems to be somewhat randomly placed around the article. Religious beliefs, marriage, wealth, and legacy is something for a "Personal life" section, which this article really needs.

Neutral

It represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each

The article is almost neutral. There are a few of non-neutral comments late in the article which I will point out if the editors themselves don't notice it while they are re-glance the article.

Stable

It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

The article is stable, the content does not change significantly from day to day, no edit wars or disputes have existed.

Illustrated

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

b. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

The article features five images all of which are uploaded and from Commons. However, I would recommend adding a picture in the "Khmelnytsky uprising" section per the length of it.

Pass, fail or hold?

The article is not far off from meeting the GA-criteria, but it still has some loopholes. Piotrus, I would appreciate you looking over the problems and suggestions I have made so the article can pass the review. I hope this helps. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 00:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonas Vinther: Thank you for your throughout review. I hope my recent edits address all issues, save for the personal life section. I don't think it is necessary in the article, as it would break the chronological flow of removing information from the prose - and I don't think it is required by the MoS, just an option for such articles. Correct me if I am wrong here, of course. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:26, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The depth of the article is better now. I spotted a few tiny errors later in the article which I will fix, and then I will pass it. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 08:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have made much more than tiny improvements, but whatever; the article is now of GA-class and I'm going to pass it now. Good job, Piotrus. :) Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 13:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]