Jump to content

Talk:Szczerbiec/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Rcej (Robert) - talk 08:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello :) We'll start the review ASAP; I want to do a more thorough read-thru, and I've been known to do a ce here or there, if I see a nitpicky need. Fear not! heh Rcej (Robert) - talk 08:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here we go :) For now, let's deal with a few issues regarding some of the article's images:

hmmm... it could be interpreted as that from the illustration; but the file description doesn't specify that he's hitting the Gate of Kiev. Add to that the possibility that the drive-by reader could glean "oh, maybe the Szczerby was that sword" from "...hitting ...with a sword,"; and that caption could be giving an inaccurate impression. No suggestion of his actions would be a 'safer' caption.
 Done — Kpalion(talk) 12:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very good.-- Rcej (Robert) - talk 05:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done. I think one image of the Vladislaus the Elbow-High is enough, so it's either one or the other. But I personally prefer an image that was actually made during the king's lifetime, even if not very detailed, than another imaginary painting made by Matejko six centuries later. — Kpalion(talk) 12:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cool... we'll go with you on that :) Rcej (Robert) - talk 05:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neither the english nor polish file descriptions specify that he's holding Wally Szczerbiak (sorry...couldn't resist a lame pun). Let's not mention the Szczerbiec in that caption, without verification.-- Rcej (Robert) - talk 08:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. The painting by Bacciarelli is discussed in Lileyko, the main source for this article, which specifically identifies the sword as the Szczerbiec. I don't have a source for Jacobi's painting, but it's practically identical to Bacciarelli's (I used Jacobi's copy only because it was already on Commons; otherwise, I'd have to scan Bacciarelli's portrait from the book). I added a citation after "holding the Szczerbiec". Please let me know, if this is not enough. — Kpalion(talk) 12:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good again! Rcej (Robert) - talk 05:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfree images

[edit]

While we're talking about illustrations, I used them in good faith that that they were all free, but on closer inspection, I now suspect that some of them are copyright violations. I tagged them as such on Commons and removed them from the article. It may be difficult to find a good, free replacement for the image of the sword itself. The Wawel museum doesn't allow taking pictures inside and photographs taken by someone who died more than 70 years ago may be almost impossible to find. If discussions on Commons result in keeping some of the images, I will put them back here. — Kpalion(talk) 14:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very good eagle-eye of the situation on your part! Also, that was a great decision to move the image from the Hilt section up into the infobox. If it turns out that replacements for the ex-pics are not going to happen, you may consider topical images, such as putting File:France Arles St Trophime Portal Detail.jpg in the Hilt section with a 'Four Evangels/Christian symbolism/Szczerby' work-in caption. No worries :) Rcej (Robert) - talk 05:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking about using a copyrighted picture of the Szczerbiec in the infobox under fair use, but I'm not sure, if the fact that taking pictures inside the Wawel Castle is not allowed is enough to justify a fair use claim. What do you think? — Kpalion(talk) 13:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
hmm...I don't think that's a good idea, considering that another depiction is not necessary to get a ga, while adding a questionable image could result in a re-evaluation/delisting from ga down the road.-- Rcej (Robert) - talk 06:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moving on

[edit]

Moving on; a couple new things:

  • in Hilt, regarding the quote "With whom is the Omnipotent Lord and Savior, to help him against his enemies. Amen"; MOS kind of frowns on wikilinks within quotes, especially with commonly known or previously defined terms. So, using that sentence as an example, if we remove the wlinks within quotes article-wide, with the exception of unknown/undefined terms... that will be satisfactory. I prefer to do it that way too.
     Done. I was thinking that these terms may be a little obscure for people who are not familiar with Judeo-Christian culture, but then, they are not necessary for understanding the article. — Kpalion(talk) 13:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Much better :) Rcej (Robert) - talk 06:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing

[edit]

A question about your way of doing things, so I'll better know your referencing practice: Whenever you write a paragraph, but there is only one citation at the end of the entire thing or the majority of it, does the source usually cover the entirity of what's written? Example too; in The Szczerbiec of Boleslaus the Brave, the paragraph "It is plausbile, though, that Boleslaus did chip his sword by hitting it against an earlier gate in Kiev. His great-grandson, Boleslaus the Bold (r. 1058–1079), hit the Golden Gate with the same sword in 1069, which would indicate that it was a customary gesture of gaining control over a city.", is this covered in the ref that's cited a couple of sentences below?

Also, when you begin a sentence with speculatives like "It is plausible..., it is possible...", etc., is that the source's take in all cases, or sometimes just the reader's most logical interpretation that you are drawing out in the general context? :) Rcej (Robert) - talk 06:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)y[reply]

Yes, when there's only one citation at the end of a paragraph, it means that the entire paragraph is based on one source. As you can see, most of the article is really a summary of a single book; I know it probably wouldn't be enough for an FA, but I guess it's OK for a GA. I figured that peppering each paragraph with more than one citation of the same source would be an overkill, but if you think that some particular claims may be challenged, I can add citations to them.
And yes, when I write "it is possible...", it's because the source itself only speculates. If you want, I can quote specific passages (here on talk page) when I have acces to the book again next week. — Kpalion(talk) 10:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I got it now, so here's the relevant passage, Lileyko, p.16 (translation mine):
(...) However, in knightly customs, hitting a sword against a gate of a captured city signified taking possession of it. There is no reason to doubt that the Polish ruler knew this custom and that he could make this gesture. Moreover, the Golden Gate was not the first gate built in Kiev; this great city had gates earlier, which nobody questions. Gallus Anonymus may have only confused the name of the gate, especially that Boleslaus the Bold repeated the knightly gesture of his great-grandfather when, during the subsequent invasion of Kiev in 1069, he hit the Golden Gate, this time for sure, with a sword. Whether the Bold hit the gate with the same sword as the Brave, we do not know.
Apparently, I only got the last bit of info wrong; I corrected it now. — Kpalion(talk) 19:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC) P.S. I may not respond during the weekend.[reply]
No prob... we can resume Tues. :)

Next; a couple of things: Why Properties and not Description? No biggie, but drive-by glancers might go directly to the description section, but sort of go 'huh?' at properties... we'll go with your pref. though, since there's no real MOS for sword articles (unless I've blindly overlooked it!). Also, is there anything on the origin of the sword's initial conception/creation/blacksmithing? Who first decided 'Let's make an awesome sword!'? Rcej (Robert) - talk 04:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, "Description" is a better section title.
As for who, where, when and why acutally forged the sword, the answer is, nobody knows for sure. The sources I used didn't say much more than what I already wrote in the History section. — Kpalion(talk) 09:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep... you're correct :) And with this, and the fact that everything else pretty much checks out; the article passes the GAR! Kudos to your work on the article and review, and it was nice working with you :-) Rcej (Robert) - talk 06:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Results of review

[edit]
GA review (see here for criteria)

The article Szczerbiec passes this review, and has been upgraded to good article status. The article is found by the reviewing editor to be deserving of good article status based on the following criteria:

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. 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):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail: Pass
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Szczerbiec/GA1&oldid=346244632"