Wikipedia:Featured article review/Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 01:59, 3 July 2009 [1].
Review commentary
[edit]- Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lithuania, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Former countries, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poland, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Belarus, User talk:Piotrus.
FA from 2004, referencing/1c issues throughout - though not as many as your typical unreviewed FA from 2004, so hopefully this should not be that difficult to address. The article uses a very large number of images (37 in total) - these could use an image review. Cirt (talk) 06:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I've been trying to keep this article up to date, but I will not be able to dedicate time to seriously work on it for about 2-3 weeks I am afraid. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 07:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hrm, well maybe in the interim you could do some minor/light work on it. Cirt (talk) 07:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I object to the use of Iwo Cyprian Pogonowski as a reference in anything outside his professional field (engineering, altho his work as a lexicologist was well-received), cited here three or four times (refs 81 and 82). He is described as a politically motivated amateur by Piotr Wrobel in a piece published by Rice University [2], as a conspiratologist in an article published by CESNUR [3], and as a leading and disturbing representative of ethnonationalist historiography in this book [4]. I invite reviewers to read at least the first few paragraphs of this piece Pogonowski posted on his website [5] and draw their own conclusions. This was briefly discussed at Reliable Sources [6] tho no real conclusion was reached.
He's used in this article to support population figures and ethnic breakdowns thereof; at least one source, from Yale University Press, disagrees with his stat for Commonwealth population after the Union of Lublin - currently the article, sourced to Iwo, gives 7 million, where the Yale book gives "nearly 10 million". [7]
On another note. Some copyvio: " Most of the masters arrived from the major cities of Western Europe such as Nuremberg, Augsburg and Amsterdam. The brought with them new shapes and objects. But as they entered into the local milieu and took up the conditions of their new lives, local customs and traditions, these masters created new works that were different from those of their western brethren" and "Aside from expensive presentation items, the silversmiths also produced utilitarian items for a broader clientele. Among these were tankards..." verbatim from [8], added 2009. [9] Wayback machine dates the Hermitage's version to 2004 [10] Given this and the existence of copyvios in other articles from this era [11], [12], I think it needs a going-over. Novickas (talk) 17:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Pogonowski, or rather his maps are only used for uncontroversial population numbers. Numbrers in historical demographics vary widely, we can include other estimates but I see no reason to remove his. Regarding the copyvio, please notify the editor who added it, Martim33. He has been adding a lot of content to the article and I didn't have time to review it; if his edits are copyviod, we should be easily able to revert them in batch. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've left messages about the copyvio problems (at least 10) at the article talk page and at the three country project boards. Novickas (talk) 14:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the copyvios have been addressed - no, it was not easy. Back to Pogonowski as a source.
- I've left messages about the copyvio problems (at least 10) at the article talk page and at the three country project boards. Novickas (talk) 14:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks as tho dubious sources are not accepted in FAs. The argument presented by P., that the source is used for uncontroversial statistics - he and I have tangled on that before, so other opinions welcomed. I would strongly prefer that we not use any questionable sources in an FA. Or anywhere else on WP. If his numbers are uncontroversial, they could be found elsewhere. In the last few days, an editor has removed criticism from the Pogonowski article stating BLP concerns. If those are justfied, they should be removed here too, eh? He also writes for Radio Maryja [13] and its print version, Nasz Dziennik. [14]Novickas (talk) 21:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Novickas (talk) 14:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The galleries are unnecessary and may be removed. Too many images on one page can restrict access to the article for readers on slow connections or using older computers. I suggest limiting the number of images to only those that are informative or illustrative. So, show just one coin rather than three, and one example of typical architecture, etc.
Though no-one could doubt the PD-Art licensing tags of the paintings, ideally the original sources should be given. Similarly, it is not entirely clear who created File:Europe map 1648.PNG and File:RegiaCivitatisGedanensis.jpg. Presumably the uploaders, but this does not appear to be explicitly stated anywhere. DrKiernan (talk) 13:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- An interesting sourcing issue has now arisen - see thread at [15]. Evidence strongly suggests that a source currently being used as a ref in this article contains material copied verbatim or near-verbatim from here. Novickas (talk) 19:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
[edit]- Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, copyright, POV. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 05:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There seems to have been some concern in the edit history [16] and above, above copyvio. Has this been addressed/resolved? Cirt (talk) 05:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the copy vios have been fixed - either rewritten or removed.radek (talk) 05:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm still seeing some unaddressed issues from above, including 1c issues, and {{fact}} tags. Cirt (talk) 14:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref #25 [17], used eight times here, copied material verbatim or close to verbatim from this and two other WP articles without crediting them. The copied sentences, rewritten slightly in some cases, are now ref'd to the paper. See [18] Novickas (talk) 14:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.