Talk:Jerzy Luczak-Szewczyk

Proof-reading of this article

Some time ago I published an article on the Swedish Wikipedia about the artist Jerzy Luczak-Szewczyk. He was a Swedish citizen who had exhibitions in Sweden as well as in Europe. As I know he is represented in private collections in different countries I considered it motivated to translate the text from Swedish to English and then publish it on the English Wikipedia. I hope you find the references satisfying enough. As I am a Swedish Wikipedian I'm grateful for all corrections of spelling faults, bad grammar or anything else linguistically that needs to be adjusted. I would also appreciate if someone could help placing the article in appropriate categories. Best regards!Antecknaren (talk) 17:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Inline citations

@Piotrus and Manxruler: I am aware of the need to insert inline citations in the article and will do it as soon as possible. Thanks a lot for your help! Antecknaren (talk) 18:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@Manxruler: Hi! Today I have tried to insert inline citations as best I can. Just want to tell you if you want to check them. Thanks for helping me! Antecknaren (talk) 16:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I think you are doing quite good. One major point, though. I'm sceptical about the use of archive documents as sources for the article. Wikipedia:No original research makes it clear: "all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source." As archival documents are not published, they're not okay to use. You need to write the article based on reliable published sources. Manxruler (talk) 19:03, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@Manxruler:Hi Manxruler! On this page: '''Wikipedia:Verifiability#What counts as a reliable source''' In note number 6 it is declared that te definition of "published" reliable sources "includes "material such as documents in publicly accessible archives, inscriptions on monuments, gravestones, etc., that are available for anyone to see." It took me some time to find this information but when I did I concluded that it must be quite OK to use my sources as all of them are publicly accessible. I find it hard to understand the note in any other way. The archives where the documents are kept are run by the state and in every way open to anyone who wants to visite them and study their collections. Please read the note on the page I mentioned and give me your opinion. Im grateful for your answer! Antecknaren (talk) 21:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@Manxruler: Sorry - something went wrong when I inserted the link. Here it is again: Wikipedia:Verifiability Se paragraph "What counts as a reliable surce" and note 6. Antecknaren (talk) 21:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

It was the bolding inside the link that broke it. Yes, I see that the footnote at WP:Verifiability appears to support your use of archive material. It's very unusual, at least. What I would recommend, is to ask about such sources over at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. They're the ones in the know about such things. Manxruler (talk) 21:27, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@Manxruler: Hi again and thanks for your answer. I will think about contacting the Noticeboard. The thing is though: I really cant understand why it should be a problem to use archive material, when its so clearly stated in the note that its Ok as long as anyone can access it... Antecknaren (talk) 21:41, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

It's your choice. At the very least, ensure that the archive source covers what it is used as a reference for. For example, right now it looks like "Marriage certificate: 11 November 1950. Olaus Petri Parish, Örebro, Sweden" is a cite for "Jerzy Luczak-Szewczyk never returned to Poland, but stayed in contact by mail with his parents in Poland and with his sister, who after having been liberated from a German POW camp by British forces, settled in England. In 1950 he married the Swedish girl Inga Johansson." If it only covers the last sentence, that that should be clarified. Manxruler (talk) 21:59, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@Manxruler: Thanks to your remark I noticed I hade forgotten to insert a note (after the word "England")! Now its done! The note you mention is only ment to cover the sentence it follows. Through out the page I have tried to place the notes directly after the sentences they cover, but in some places they are ment to cover not only the last sentence but the whole paragraph. I have checked them today and will do so again tomorrow. Its getting late so I must bid you god night - and once more: Thanks ever so much for all your help!! Antecknaren (talk) 23:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Another remark: Why was his sister held at a German POW camp? Was she a soldier who was taken prisoner of war? Manxruler (talk) 10:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@Manxruler: She was a girlscout active in the polish underground movement during the Warsaw insurrection in August 1944. When the city fell the Germans took her together with many other women to a POW camp. The note refers to what she herself has written about this in the epilogue in her book. I also know this because she told me when I visited her some years ago and because I have found som facts about her on a Polish website. I dont want to write anything more specific about this for two reasons: First because the article is not focused on her history and second because I dont want to refer to what we spoke about - that would be to refer to "unpublished" information. However, I can tell you that she married in England and that this why her surname as an author is "Phillips". Antecknaren (talk) 11:54, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@Manxruler: P.S. You can find more information about Polish women in the insurrection under the paragraph "Poland" on this page: Women in World War II. Antecknaren (talk) 12:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Ah, so she was connected with the Home Army or some similar group? If so, that should be very briefly mentioned (a few words), to clarify that she wasn't just some random girl that the Germans decided put in a POW camp (being a prisoner of war gave certain rights, so the Germans would not likely put any prisoner there). As it stands now, it is quite confusing. Manxruler (talk) 12:26, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@Manxruler:Yes. She was a girl scout (polish = "harcerka") i.e. a member of the Scout movement conected to Armia Krajowa. It may be difficult to formulate a "very brief" sentence but I will try during the evening. Will leet you know when Its done. I'll be back later. Something else: After a brief look in your Userpage I understand that you live in Norway. I send greetings to your beautiful country from Sweden -:) -:)! Antecknaren (talk) 18:08, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@Manxruler: Ok. The text is completed. Could'nt make it shorter than this. I have also mad a small addition in note number 2. Tell me what you think. Antecknaren (talk) 19:37, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

It's good. Footnote no. 2 needs a page number. Manxruler (talk) 21:54, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@Manxruler: Im glad that you are satisfied with the completion of the text. About note no. 2: The note is ment to refer to the whole book. I prefer not to choose just one or two pages as every chapter and page consists of stories and memories of the Szewczyk family. It's based upon a diary that Janina started to write on her 10th birtday 1939, in which she tells about the family's life before and right after the invasion of Poland.Antecknaren (talk) 22:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

You could cite the page where she mentions Jerzy the first time? Manxruler (talk) 08:14, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

@Manxruler: Is that your opinion or is it a customary rule? (I'm just asking. Could be good to know for future articles.) She mentions him the first time on page 1. Antecknaren (talk) 10:28, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

It's a norm, when citing lengthy sources. In this instance I suppose you it could suffice with the whole book as a ref. Manxruler (talk) 13:46, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply! Even if the text could be sufficent as it is I anyhow decided to insert a short completion in the note, because I want the article to be edited in a correctly manner and according to the norm. Let me know if you think the text in the note is OK. When I wrote it I also discovered that I had made a major mistake concerning the order of the artists two christian names in the beginning of the article. I have corrected it. Please excuse me for doing such an unforgivable fault!!! Antecknaren (talk) 15:28, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Seems fine now. Good work. Manxruler (talk) 15:41, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

@Manxruler: Thanks a lot for your comment!! Tell me if there is something else you want me to correct. I am invited to visite a friend tonight but will check this site again tomorrow. Untill we can talk again I send my best regards - and many thanks again for your help! En stor klem sender: Antecknaren (talk) 16:17, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

No prob. You need a few more refs (I could tag those points, if you like). When you've referenced those points, then I think you should head over to Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Assessment and request a re-assessment of the article (it is currently rated as "Start" class, and once the last refs are added, it should qualify for a higher class). Manxruler (talk) 16:23, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

@Manxruler: Hi again! I am grateful for all information about where I need to complete references. Please tell me where so that I can do it. I really would like the article to qualify for a higher class... Antecknaren (talk) 16:44, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done Manxruler (talk) 16:58, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

You know, if you'd like to, you could go nominate the article over at Wikipedia:Did you know. That showcases articles launched within the last seven days. Have a look at that. Manxruler (talk) 19:12, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

@Manxruler:Thanks for the tags! I will see to them today and let you know when I'm done. I'll also take a look att "Did you know". Have a nice day! Antecknaren (talk) 10:15, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@Manxruler: The changes are done. For the moment I haven't access to the documents about Inga Szewczyk so I just erased the information about her being a teacher and the artist's translator untill I later on can add a proper note about it. I also erased the sentence concerning Jerzy's intention to have an exhibition in Stockholm as I think it's rather unnecessary. Due to this I had to make some small changes in the paragraphs. Finaly I added a note concerning his Swedish citizenship. I am grateful for your comments! When you say "go" I will request a re-assessment of the article. P.S. I saw your changes in the infobox. Thanks! Antecknaren (talk) 12:19, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is ready for reassessment now. And you should also try and go for a Did You Know, which for a single day gives much more exposure for an article than it is ever likely to have otherwise. Manxruler (talk) 14:05, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@Manxruler:Thanks for your comment! I checked the link you sent earlier to Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Assessment but I'm not sure I understand how to request a reassessment. Is it the instruction under the paragraph "Requesting an assessment" I must follow? Antecknaren (talk) 17:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@Manxruler: I found it. Have requested for reassessment. Is it to much to hope for a "B"? I will try to go for "Did You know" after the article has been reassessed. Antecknaren (talk) 18:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd say it probably has a decent chance at B class. If you're interested in having a go at DYK, then you need to nominate it pretty much right away, time is of the essence. The Did You Know process takes quite a bit of time, so its best to nominate the article now, rather than later, when it will be too late. Did You Know is for new articles. I would nominate today, if I were you. Manxruler (talk) 18:52, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@Manxruler: I really would like a "B"... Concerning "Did You know": I read that the article must be classified as a "Good article". According to this page: Wikipedia:Good article criteria, paragraph "Immediate failures" the article will fail immediatly if "It has, or needs, banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include {{</nowiki>cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar tags." As the article still has the template <nowiki>{{refimprove section}} I dont think it will qualify... Antecknaren (talk) 19:43, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@Manxruler: P.S. A moment ago I had a closer look on how a nomination is done. I'm afraid it looks a bit to complicated for meright now. I'm a new user and would need more time to learn this than I have, as the article was created exactly 7 days ago today actualy + some hours. Thanks anyhow for suggesting it to me. Maybe I can do it if/when I expand the article in the future. Then I could read the instructions on beforehand.

@Manxruler:Sorry - by mistake I sent my previous reply without signing it! 20:10, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@Manxruler: Did it again - I guess I'm getting quite tired. Sorry!!! Need a break! Antecknaren (talk) 20:15, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Sure thing. About the whole Did You Know thing, there's a bit of leeway with regards to the deadline, if you're new at it, and people over there will be willing to help out with the technicalities. I don't think you need to review other nominations when you're new at it either. Manxruler (talk) 20:43, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and you don't need the article to be rated Good. Newness is sufficient, as long as it is not a stub, which this article is not. As for the tag, I removed it, as you have now a sufficient coverage of references. Manxruler (talk) 20:48, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@Manxruler:You're so helpfull Manxruler, but I'm sorry to say that I simply can't do it as I'm not sure that I understand the instructions enough. I have to read them properly before I dare to fill in the form. Tonight I'm just too tired to do that. Over here time is 22.45 and I've had a very long day. If there is a bit of a leeway, as you say, I might try tomorrow even if it probably is to late. Your removal of the template will absolutely help and I'm during all circumstances very happy that it's gone!! Well. I have to stop writing for tonight. As you have seen I recently made som silly faults when writing replies to you. This time I won't forget to sign. I send a great hug - you have helped me immensely and you will hear from me again. Antecknaren (talk) 21:52, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

No worries. Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 22:21, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@Manxruler: Could'nt fix it today either - I'm sick in a horrible influensa! Will check on my request for reassessment later this week, but otherwise I'll have to rest. (Will remember "DYK" for future articles though.) Hope to talk to you some other time again. Antecknaren (talk) 15:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Best of luck with your recovery. Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 23:04, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

@Manxruler: Many thanks for cheering me! After some terrible days I'm well and back again. Someone has placed a new template in the article so I'll have to see what I can do about that... You'll hear from me later on again! Antecknaren (talk) 22:59, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Orphan article

@Magioladitis: Hi! I noticed that you placed an "Orphan tag" in this article which I have edited. I read the information about orphans and have now tried my best to fix the problem by adding links from the following pages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%81uczak#Luczak, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Szewczyk, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_Poles. However, as I am a new user I'd like to ask for your help to check that I've done this correctly. If so, I also would like to ask you to help me "de-orphan" the article. Otherwise please tell me what more I have to do. Earlier I requested a reassessment/evaluation of the article but I suppose that it wasn't granted because it's an orphan. If everything is ok now, I'd like to request again. I would appreciate your help very much! Antecknaren (talk) 16:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: Many thanks for checking the article and removing the "orphan tag"!!! Anyhow I will try to find more pages that can link to it before I request again for a reassessment. I understand that the article then would be even easier to find. I wish you a nice day! Antecknaren (talk) 11:02, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Antecknaren Happy editing! Keep up the good job! -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:04, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: Thanks for placing a note on the talk page in Orphan article - I will read it and go on trying to do my best! Antecknaren (talk) 11:14, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: Sorry! I got it wrong - thought the alert message ment another page - new users make stupid mistakes... :-) Antecknaren (talk) 11:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Notability

@Staszek Lem: Hi Staszek, I have seen the template concerning notability that you placed in the article, and I have read the guidelines for notability and concerning different kind of sources. I don't think I can refer to other secondary sources than those I already have mentioned. However, I can add more references to newspaper articles and reviews from exhibitions, that will support the artist's notability and the fact that he was (and still is) well known in Sweden. Also, I have noticed some other things I can change that would improve the article. As I am a new user I will need one or two days to carry out these completions and changes but as soon as it's done I will notify you. Please have patience with me!! Best regards! Antecknaren (talk) 09:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@Staszek Lem: Hi again Stazek. I just want to thank you for removing the template and for inserting the picture. Earlier I thought of the picture myself but I forgot it(!) This evening I made some changes in the text and added some notes, but I'm not ready yet. I have more references to add. Will notify you later again! Antecknaren (talk) 20:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@Staszek Lem: Hi Staszek. Now I have added a lot of notes in the text and at the bottom of the page references to further articles in newspapers. In the notes no 14, 15 and 19 you'll find that I inserted quotations. I would be grateful if you could check them and let me know if they are to long or If I need to change them in some way. Two of them are written in French so I have added translations controlled by a friend of mine who has studied both languages on a high level. I'd also like to know what you think of the article now. Are you satisfied with the completions or do you still have questions about the artists "notability"? I look forward to hearing from you! Antecknaren (talk) 15:45, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments on some changes made by user: 190.181.202.83

On two occasions user 190.181.202.83 has made incorrect changes in the article about the artist Jerzy Luczak-Szewczyk.

First: on 19 May 2017 this user erased the information that the artist was "Polish-born" and also "Swedish" i.e. a Swedish citizen. Instead he (or she) only wrote that the artist was "Polish". This is not correct. He was born in Poland 1923, lived in Sweden from 1944 and became a Swedish citizen in 1954. This is explained in the article.

Secondly on 6 June 2017 the user changed the text that stated that the artist was "Polish-born" once again and now wrote that he was "Polish-Swedish". In the revision history he/she also wrote the remark that the artist "remained a Polish citizen". The change thereby indicated that the artist kept his Polish citizenship even after he became a Swedish citizen. This is not correct. He did not keep his Polish citizenship after becoming a Swedish citizen.

Furthermore: on the same date, 6 June 2017, the user changed the sentence stating that the artists wife was "Swedish-born". Instead he/she wrote that the artists wife was "Swede". Beside that this is a bad formulation in English, I find it quite relevant in this context to keep the expression "Swedish-born" to inform readers that she was born in Sweden, not elsewhere.

Because of the reasons I mention above I have undone all of these changes in the article.

User 190.181.202.83 is not reachable as he/she has no user page. As I hope that he/she reads this anyhow I'd like to leave a message: Although it appears as if you have a somewhat peculiar aversion against the expressions "Polish-born" and "Swedish-born" I suggest that you accept them, as they in a correct way describe where the artist and his wife were born. If you for some reason cannot accept them you are most welcome to explain and motivate your wish to exchange them on this discussion page. Though your changes are rather small I anyhow kindly would like to urge you not to do further such changes in the future (unless you clearly can account for your reason why) as they may lead to undesired alterations of historical facts. Best regards Antecknaren (talk) 23:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)