Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Stanisław Koniecpolski
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator(s): Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus (talk)
- The article's previous A-class review can be found here.
A biography of one of the best known Polish military commanders, from the Golden Age of Poland. Also, an illustration of how our standards change. This was one of my first FAs years ago, in the days of Brilliant Prose. Recently I got around to adding inline cites, and bringing it to a GA status. Now, I hope we can move it forward to A-class, and eventually, FA-class. With regards to the "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" concern raised at an earlier review (and/or the "heavy reliance on one source"): Podhorodecki (1978) is THE decisive biography of the subject, no significant work has on him has been published since (and the entry from Polski Słownik Biograficzny predates Podhorecki's work, and he discusses it anyway). (And in case anybody wonders: no, there are no good English sources). PS. If somebody can do the "Update the transclusion in the relevant assessment archive page, found by using the "What Links Here" feature." part of the instructions, I'd appreciate it, it doesn't make enough sense to me. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 18:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Technical comment (not by way of review): I have completed the requested transclusion updates with these edits: [1] and [2]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 02:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries, good luck with the review. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 02:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, here are some comments of mine.
- "Koniecpolski also negotiated with the Cossacks near Olszanica, where the Cossack register (list of privileged Cossacks in the Commonwealth military) was limited to 1,000 and Cossack raids on the Black Sea were banned" This seems a bit confusing in structure. Is what happened that: In negotiations with the Cossacks of Olszanica, Koniecpolski banned raids on the Black Sea and limited positions that the Cossacks from Olszanica could hold in the Cossack register to 1,000. If so, your current structure seems a bit confusing. Also, perhaps the total # in the Cossack register should be mentioned. Later, you seem to mention that the register is related to military service. Perhaps a bit more could be said about this.
- When was Treaty of Khotyn signed?
- Date added. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 00:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there anything to say about his relationship with Khmelnytsky other than what is already said? This seems like it could be important due to Khmelnytsky's later rebellion.
- Nothing significant. Chmielnicki had more of a (bad) relation with Stanislaw's son, Aleksander Koniecpolski (1620–1659), but this is outside the scope of this article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 00:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps something should be said about his legacy for future Polish and European/worldwide military leaders. That could also be somewhere that would describe tactics that were characteristic of him.
- An excellent idea, if only there were any sources for that. As far as I know, there aren't, or at least I cannot find them. If anybody would like to point me to any specific source, I'd be more than happy to read it.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 00:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This [3] seems like it has a section on the Polish Art of War in the 16th and 17th centuries. That section, from what the Google Book preview shows me, does seem to talk about the influence of Koniecpolski on some later commanders, though I can't tell because some pages are not in the preview.Perhaps that might be of help. Other than this, I'm willing to support. --DemonicInfluence (talk) 00:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- An excellent idea, if only there were any sources for that. As far as I know, there aren't, or at least I cannot find them. If anybody would like to point me to any specific source, I'd be more than happy to read it.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 00:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Also are foreign language sources really not allowed?
- Why wouldn't they be...? I just made that note above for the occasional editor who thinks so. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 00:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, I think this article was decent, but it felt like it lacked a bit of a conclusion. DemonicInfluence (talk) 21:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments: I have focused on nitpicks. I hope these won't come off as too petty, but if you want to take it to FAC, you will probably need to consider some of these sorts of things:
- some images appear to have alt text, but others don't. It is not an A-class requirement, but you might consider making it consistent: [4] (suggestion only);
- Sure, fixed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 00:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- there is a disambig link here: "negotiated with the Cossacks near Olszanica" (Olszanica, being the dab). Can this be dealt with?
- Well... there is one location that makes the most sense, and I disambiguated the link there, but it's not like the source is specific. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 00:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- in the Notes, there is a tense issue: "after the diary of Karol Ogier, a French courtier, who in 1635 noted that Koniecpolski is 43 years old". (It should probably be "after the diary of Karol Ogier, a French courtier, who in 1635 noted that Koniecpolski was 43 years old);
- in the lead "Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth" is overlinked;
- elsewhere in the article, the duplicate link checker reports quite a few instances of possible overlink: Sieradz, Sigismund III Vasa, Jan Zolkiweski, Iskender Pasha, Krzysztof Zbaraski, Khan Temir, viovode, Sejm, Black Sea, Pomerania, Puck, Danzig, Gniew, Tczew, Baltic Sea, stutter (and others);
- in the Gustavus Adolphus: 1626-29 section, there is an incorrectly spaced emdash: "putting his small forces to most efficient use — quick". Per WP:DASH, emdashes shouldn't be spaced;
- in the Wealth and influence section, there is an incorrectly spaced emdash: "Like most magnates, Koniecpolski sponsored artists — painters, sculptors". As above;
- in the Wealth and influence section, "Koniecpolski inherited some 7–8 villages from his father". I suggest changing this to: "Koniecpolski inherited seven or eight villages from his father";
- some of the inline citations end in full stops, but others don't. For example consider # 47 and 48. Either style is fine, but consistency is the key;
- the works in the Further reading section are not presented in a consistent style. For example consider Czaplinski v. Jasienica. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 00:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- My concerns have been dealt with. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 00:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsSupport - some technical stuff, mostly nitpicking:- This article has some WP:Overcite issues - you don't need citations to the exact same reference for consecutive sentences, this is poor citation use and not in line with general practice in writing history.
- I beg to strongly disagree here. No, we are not writing a history book; we are writing a wikified encyclopedia. For such a medium, those are very good citations. That we accept lesser standards is a pity, I most certainly refuse to write substandard articles. (Sorry if I came of strong here, but this is something I feel very strongly about; and the citation style I use is not forbidden or discouraged by current rules). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand your concerns over text-source integrity, but the way you're going about it doesn't really accomplish anything different than using less dense citations. People always can insert new material into sentences with sources (see here for example). There's nothing you can do about that besides remain vigilant; it doesn't matter how densely you cite things. Annotating the citations to include what material they cover would probably be a better way to ensure text-source integrity, as then, if other material was inserted, the readers would at least know what each citation actually covers. Even still, as long as at least one person is keeping an eye on an article, it shouldn't be a problem. For example, I wrote SMS Von der Tann four years ago, and no such problems have crept into the article. Parsecboy (talk) 02:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, nonetheless a densely cited article is better than the one that is not. While both can suffer from unreferenced text sneaked into referenced sentences, the densely cited one will at least not suffer from the question of "whether this sentence is referenced or not." --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I lost track of this ACR for a little while - I won't oppose over the citation thing, since it's just a matter of opinion. Hopefully this can be passed soon, since it's been open for almost 2 months now :) Parsecboy (talk) 14:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, nonetheless a densely cited article is better than the one that is not. While both can suffer from unreferenced text sneaked into referenced sentences, the densely cited one will at least not suffer from the question of "whether this sentence is referenced or not." --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand your concerns over text-source integrity, but the way you're going about it doesn't really accomplish anything different than using less dense citations. People always can insert new material into sentences with sources (see here for example). There's nothing you can do about that besides remain vigilant; it doesn't matter how densely you cite things. Annotating the citations to include what material they cover would probably be a better way to ensure text-source integrity, as then, if other material was inserted, the readers would at least know what each citation actually covers. Even still, as long as at least one person is keeping an eye on an article, it shouldn't be a problem. For example, I wrote SMS Von der Tann four years ago, and no such problems have crept into the article. Parsecboy (talk) 02:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I beg to strongly disagree here. No, we are not writing a history book; we are writing a wikified encyclopedia. For such a medium, those are very good citations. That we accept lesser standards is a pity, I most certainly refuse to write substandard articles. (Sorry if I came of strong here, but this is something I feel very strongly about; and the citation style I use is not forbidden or discouraged by current rules). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In addition, there are several instances where three or more citations are used to support one sentence or even a single clause - this is overkill, especially for non-contentious material. For example, why do you need four citations for this sentence: "On 2 April 1627 Koniecpolski managed to recapture Puck."
- You are right here, I removed three unnecessary cites.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What source was used to create File:Rzeczpospolita.png?
- We would have to ask User:Halibutt. Out of curiosity, are we finally up to removing and tagging unreferenced maps? I suggested we should do this years ago, but the community was not interested then. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know what the general consensus is, but at the FAC I'm doing right now, Nikkimaria raised concerns over a map that did not specify a source, so I removed it. It makes sense. Parsecboy (talk) 02:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you could ask her. I'd support such a policy, but I'd hesitate to remove a useful map from an author I trust, just because we are going above and beyond our current policy. In this case I am pretty sure the map is accurate and neutral, and seems helpful. I've also left a comment at User_talk:Halibutt#Sources_for_your_maps and you're welcome to chip in and pressure 'but for the sources. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know what the general consensus is, but at the FAC I'm doing right now, Nikkimaria raised concerns over a map that did not specify a source, so I removed it. It makes sense. Parsecboy (talk) 02:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We would have to ask User:Halibutt. Out of curiosity, are we finally up to removing and tagging unreferenced maps? I suggested we should do this years ago, but the community was not interested then. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The description for File:Bitwa pod Oliwą 1627 3.JPG gives a date in the "mid 20th century" - if this was painted in the mid-20th century, it is not PD in the US and therefore unusable.
- You are probably right. The description of the file is bad, I'd suggest notifying the uploader, USer:Mathiasrex, and nominating it for deletion on Commons. I'll remove it from our article till this is resolved.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Be careful with image placement, they shouldn't sandwich text between two images.
- Fixed; they don't on my screen... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The monitor I'm using right now is somewhat small, so that might have been why.
- Fixed; they don't on my screen... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep an eye on low value links - stutter, hip, and fire power should probably be de-linked, for example. Also, some things are linked more than one, such as Tartar.
- This article has some WP:Overcite issues - you don't need citations to the exact same reference for consecutive sentences, this is poor citation use and not in line with general practice in writing history.
- Fixed.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "de facto unofficial ruler" - this is redundant.
- Fixed.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Foreign language terms should be italicized consistently.
- Fixed.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "sponsored artists—painters, sculptors, writers." - this is not how an emdash works. You should use a colon, or something like "sponsored artists, including painters..."
- Fixed.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- More nitpicking: He also sponsored military fortifications (Bar, Kudak)." - I really don't like putting things in parentheses like this; it's much cleaner to say "...military fortifications such as at Bar and Kudak" or similar. Parsecboy (talk) 20:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A couple of comments/questions after a cursory reading
- The Crown Grand Hetman: 1630–37 section uses the spelling Zygmunt III Waza, while elsewhere in the article that king's name is spelt Sigismund III Vasa
- Is "Grand Crown Hetman" a different title than "Crown Grand Hetman"? Fornadan (t) 16:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed both (standardized). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 18:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments: Not much to point out here given it's a well written article and you fixed a lot of what the others pointed, but I did pick up on a few things:
- A little context for some specialized terms like "Hetman" and "Podstoli koronny" is lacking.
- I have reviewed them in text and I see no good way of explaining them on their first use. They are however blue-linked, so the reader can easily learn more. Commonwealth had over two dozen of unique titles and offices, and it is simply impractical to explain them on their occurrence. PS. Hetman is explained in lead. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "In autumn of the same year he rejoined the army" An army wasn't previously mentioned nor is it specified which.
- I thought it would've been clear from the context, but I made it even more so. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "King Sigismund III Vasa granted the buława (ceremonial mace or baton) of Grand Crown Hetman to Stanisław Żółkiewski and the baton of Field Crown Hetman to Koniecpolski." Either both should be "baton" or "buława" to be consistent. (I'm assuming both are equal in status)
- "The conflict ended in cease-fire and in the Treaty of Kurukove; the Cossack register was set at 6,000; and the Cossacks again promised to stop raiding the Black Sea shores and provoking the Tatars." When did the conflict come to an end and the treaty get signed?
- "In 1625 the Zaporozhian Cossacks, led by Marek Zhmaylo,, rebelled, allied themselves with Szanhin Girej, and attempted to form an alliance with Moscow (the Zhmailo Uprising)." Unnecessary comma.
- In some instances you refer to Władysław as "King Władysław IV" in others as "King Władysław". This should be consistent.
- Sigismund III's last name is spelt as "Vasa" while his son's is spelt as "Waza". Why?
- I suggest that birth place and death place have the entity that existed at the time and a note saying "(present-day Poland)" and "(present-day Ukraine)" -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 18:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to support, good work. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 12:21, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. Here are some comments on the first two paragraphs:
- "(szlachcic)", "starosta", etc.: italicize words that haven't entered the English language and aren't proper nouns.
- I removed szlachcic, but szlachta and starosta seem to be used in specialized English literature without italics ([5], [6]). This is not consistent, and I could italizice them, but is this supported by MoS? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:MOS#Italics, "Foreign words". - Dank (push to talk) 16:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed szlachcic, but szlachta and starosta seem to be used in specialized English literature without italics ([5], [6]). This is not consistent, and I could italizice them, but is this supported by MoS? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "from 1625": Usually we say "from 1625 until his death" or whenever.
- "Grand Crown Hetman": The series is nonparallel, because this phrase needs a "the", not an "a".
- I am sorry, I don't understand this comment. I don't think the text uses "a Grand Crown Hetman" phrase anywhere. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Look at it again, follow the link I provided, ask around, and if it still doesn't make sense, let me know. I'm not trying to be evasive; when I work as a copyeditor, it's helpful to know how much the writers can do on their own. - Dank (push to talk) 16:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess there is an extra the, or his, or such in text. As a non-native speaker, those are sometimes a lottery to me, so if there's an extra, or missing, I am afraid the only way I could know which one would by by random guessing. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Look at it again, follow the link I provided, ask around, and if it still doesn't make sense, let me know. I'm not trying to be evasive; when I work as a copyeditor, it's helpful to know how much the writers can do on their own. - Dank (push to talk) 16:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am sorry, I don't understand this comment. I don't think the text uses "a Grand Crown Hetman" phrase anywhere. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "and later": after all the preceding things in the list?
- Clarified, I hope. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "(second-highest military commander, after the King)": Some will read that as highest other than the King; some will read it as second-highest.
- Clarified, I hope. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Koniecpolski's life involved almost constant warfare.": Generally avoid the word "involved"; it has too many different meanings, and it's often taken as a sign of intentionally evasive writing, even when the writing isn't evasive.
- Clarified, I hope. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Before he had reached the age of 20": Before age 20
- Clarified, I hope. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Battle of Cecora (Ţuţora) (1620)": ... in 1620
- "After release in 1623": After his release in 1623
- "defeated ... in 1624–26": This is a hard call; there's no consensus on when dashes are good substitutes for words. Personally, I'd say "between 1624 and 1626." - Dank (push to talk) 17:19, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you both.
Due to RL, I may not be able to address/respond this issues for a few days; I'll try to do so around Tuesday the latest.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 21:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you both.
Oppose on prose per standard disclaimer, not because I don't think it can pass, but because I don't want to see it passing in the current shape, where even when I point out a very basic problem in the opening sentence (no "and" in a list is the problem at the moment), the nominator says that he can't spot a problem. The number of problems is also part of the problem. It's not the job of copyeditors and reviewers to go through the prose of an A-class article fixing a lot of mistakes this basic. If you don't want to find a co-nominator who can help, then ... I'm not sure what's the best way to put this, but help others with their articles and it's likely that someone will help you with yours. - Dank (push to talk) 19:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- G'day, Dan and Piotr. I made an attempt at reworking the lead. Dan, is that an improvement? If so, and if Piotr is also happy with it, I will make another run through the article. Piotr, could you please review my change to the lead and check that I haven't changed the meaning? Also, I think there was an error in the dates. I changed 1625 to 1632 for Koniecpolski's rank of Grand Crown Hetman. Was this the right thing to do, or have I missed something? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Rupert. I've done more with the first two paragraphs; see what you think. I'm seeing problems in every sentence of the third paragraph as well. (The second sentence is a judgment call; I'm concerned that Wikipedians will read "sources" as the word is used on Wikipedia, and I don't expect most readers to read it that way ... I'd prefer something more specific, such as "his biographers", "historians of the period", whatever.) If it's more than you want to do, then let's talk about the fairest and most productive way to tackle this problem. - Dank (push to talk) 23:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I've done a couple of small sections. I will leave it at that for the moment, as I would like to make sure that Piotr is okay with my changes before I move on. I had a little trouble with some of the foreign language words, so unfortunately I might have misinterpreted something. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your comments and edits. I've m tweaked some things in lead. I hope they are to your liking. I very much appreciate proofraeding and copyediting, as I mentioned earlier, I am not a native speaker and those are my weak points. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I do want to see this pass A-class, Piotr, and I don't want you to give up on Milhist's A-class process. It would be nice if we could get more help from WP:POLAND here, since few (none?) of us can read the main sources. - Dank (push to talk) 15:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What kind of help? Even through WP:POLAND is pretty active, it is no milhist, we have several active editors. They can verify some facts, particularly online, but I would very much doubt they anybody would bother to verify an entire book, particularly given that most of Polish books are not visibile in Google Books, so they'd have to get a real physical copy. (Btw, I used to try to reference certain key facts with English sources, but after being repeatedly told by reviewers that my articles are over sourced, I begun to give up on that). PS. The best idea I have, source-wise, is that if there are any controversial or other claims in the article, I can quote the Polish text which translation you can have another editor verify (mind you, however, I am traveling between US and Poland often, and I may not have some sources at hand). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, my two cents is that this is a bigger problem that we can solve all at once. Yes, I'll ask over at WT:POLAND for a "spot-check" of the sources; what that entails will be up to whoever does it. We'll help with prose on this one, and I'll put some deep thought into a longer-term and more general solution to the problem; it's not fair to burden you with what I see as a wiki-wide problem. - Dank (push to talk) 19:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I like thinking about wiki-wide issues (see User:Piotrus/Morsels. But in this case, I don't see what we can do beyond getting more reviewers, who are the function of more editors... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 21:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, my two cents is that this is a bigger problem that we can solve all at once. Yes, I'll ask over at WT:POLAND for a "spot-check" of the sources; what that entails will be up to whoever does it. We'll help with prose on this one, and I'll put some deep thought into a longer-term and more general solution to the problem; it's not fair to burden you with what I see as a wiki-wide problem. - Dank (push to talk) 19:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What kind of help? Even through WP:POLAND is pretty active, it is no milhist, we have several active editors. They can verify some facts, particularly online, but I would very much doubt they anybody would bother to verify an entire book, particularly given that most of Polish books are not visibile in Google Books, so they'd have to get a real physical copy. (Btw, I used to try to reference certain key facts with English sources, but after being repeatedly told by reviewers that my articles are over sourced, I begun to give up on that). PS. The best idea I have, source-wise, is that if there are any controversial or other claims in the article, I can quote the Polish text which translation you can have another editor verify (mind you, however, I am traveling between US and Poland often, and I may not have some sources at hand). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I do want to see this pass A-class, Piotr, and I don't want you to give up on Milhist's A-class process. It would be nice if we could get more help from WP:POLAND here, since few (none?) of us can read the main sources. - Dank (push to talk) 15:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your comments and edits. I've m tweaked some things in lead. I hope they are to your liking. I very much appreciate proofraeding and copyediting, as I mentioned earlier, I am not a native speaker and those are my weak points. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I've done a couple of small sections. I will leave it at that for the moment, as I would like to make sure that Piotr is okay with my changes before I move on. I had a little trouble with some of the foreign language words, so unfortunately I might have misinterpreted something. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Rupert. I've done more with the first two paragraphs; see what you think. I'm seeing problems in every sentence of the third paragraph as well. (The second sentence is a judgment call; I'm concerned that Wikipedians will read "sources" as the word is used on Wikipedia, and I don't expect most readers to read it that way ... I'd prefer something more specific, such as "his biographers", "historians of the period", whatever.) If it's more than you want to do, then let's talk about the fairest and most productive way to tackle this problem. - Dank (push to talk) 23:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: there is a page needed tag in the Early career section. Could this be dealt with? If you are citing the whole work, then it is probably fine to just remove the tag, although it would probably be good to add a page range. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, removed that ref, the single fact it cites is covered by another ref. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- this might be better presented in a footnote (like the one currently at 'a'): "Podhorodecki gives slightly different estimates—just over 15,000 (including low-quality Gdańsk infantry) against 21,000". As it currently is, it seems a bit abrupt and breaks up the flow of the narrative. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no objection to that. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Continuing. I see "Podole Voivodeship", and "Podole" linked to Podolia, but apparently Podole can mean a lot of things. Are we talking about Podolia in both cases? - Dank (push to talk) 12:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to stop at chorąży koronny. One problem is, if they do click on chorąży, they'll find out it can mean several different things, and they have to read a fair amount to find that out. Please go through the text making sure that a reader who doesn't speak Polish can understand what the text is saying. We worked carefully on the language at WP:Checklist#clarity: "Read your work slowly to make sure that you're saying what you mean to say. Avoid obscure technical terms. For words and phrases that are common in the sources and hard to do without but unfamiliar to a lot of our readers, provide a link to a Wikipedia page or section of a page that clarifies the term. If many readers won't even be able to guess what the sentence means without clicking, give at least a clue to the meaning in the text in addition to the link." Many readers won't guess from the context what chorąży koronny means here. Please ping me when you've had a chance to go through the text, using English wherever possible (but it's fine to also give the precise, Polish words at the first occurrence), and adding clues to the meanings of Polish words where that's necessary. - Dank (push to talk) 12:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure if I understand what you are asking for. Both Podolia and Podole Voivodship are linked; they are not a disambig, and I don't think we explain geographical terms in text. I added an explanation for chorąży and podstoli. I don't see anything else from Polish terms that needs explaining, but if there is, let me know. Other terms, perhaps raitar...? On the subject of copyediting, I am not comfortable with one of the recent changes, I see that the word voivode has been replaced with the word governor. This is not correct, which is why we even have different articles on those concepts. I understand that if an English term exists, we prefer to use it, but this should be done only if this is a direct translation, and no article exists on the specialist term. When it does, as is the case with voivode, it should be used, even if it is less familiar to the reader. This is, after all, not a Simple English Wikipedia. Besides, use of approximate translation is a pain; I cannot begin to count how often I've seen inacurate translation even in academic works, making it impossible to correctly link or define a term without the use of Polish sources (oh, and FYI - the most common incorect rendering of voivode in English is not governor, but palatine...). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A voivode is a provincial governor, right? What's wrong with "provincial governor"? - Dank (push to talk) 16:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How about I get started on the difference between provinces of Poland and voivodeships of Poland? There were no provincial governors, only voivodeship governors. Known as voivodes :) Look at {{Polish terms for country subdivisions}} and try not to cringe - most if not all of them have no good translations. And Poland is no exception, France has its arrondissements, Germany has its Regierungsbezirk, Russia has its oblasts... calling them provinces or counties is not correct, not for a proper encyclopedia, that's why we have loanwords. Btw, check the naming discussion we are having at Talk:State country :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm aware that it's sometimes best to use the more exact foreign words, and I'm aware that the words that I proposed weren't exact translations. When we put "the voivode (governor)" in the lead, we're hoping that people who care about the distinctions will know that when we say "governor" in what follows, we mean voivode. What you've said has been helpful, and if this one is still here in a few days, I'll come back to it, but I'm really pressed for time right now so I won't have time to finish copyediting. I see Rupert had a chance to work on this one, and I've struck my oppose. - Dank (push to talk) 17:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your comments and help so far! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm aware that it's sometimes best to use the more exact foreign words, and I'm aware that the words that I proposed weren't exact translations. When we put "the voivode (governor)" in the lead, we're hoping that people who care about the distinctions will know that when we say "governor" in what follows, we mean voivode. What you've said has been helpful, and if this one is still here in a few days, I'll come back to it, but I'm really pressed for time right now so I won't have time to finish copyediting. I see Rupert had a chance to work on this one, and I've struck my oppose. - Dank (push to talk) 17:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How about I get started on the difference between provinces of Poland and voivodeships of Poland? There were no provincial governors, only voivodeship governors. Known as voivodes :) Look at {{Polish terms for country subdivisions}} and try not to cringe - most if not all of them have no good translations. And Poland is no exception, France has its arrondissements, Germany has its Regierungsbezirk, Russia has its oblasts... calling them provinces or counties is not correct, not for a proper encyclopedia, that's why we have loanwords. Btw, check the naming discussion we are having at Talk:State country :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A voivode is a provincial governor, right? What's wrong with "provincial governor"? - Dank (push to talk) 16:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure if I understand what you are asking for. Both Podolia and Podole Voivodship are linked; they are not a disambig, and I don't think we explain geographical terms in text. I added an explanation for chorąży and podstoli. I don't see anything else from Polish terms that needs explaining, but if there is, let me know. Other terms, perhaps raitar...? On the subject of copyediting, I am not comfortable with one of the recent changes, I see that the word voivode has been replaced with the word governor. This is not correct, which is why we even have different articles on those concepts. I understand that if an English term exists, we prefer to use it, but this should be done only if this is a direct translation, and no article exists on the specialist term. When it does, as is the case with voivode, it should be used, even if it is less familiar to the reader. This is, after all, not a Simple English Wikipedia. Besides, use of approximate translation is a pain; I cannot begin to count how often I've seen inacurate translation even in academic works, making it impossible to correctly link or define a term without the use of Polish sources (oh, and FYI - the most common incorect rendering of voivode in English is not governor, but palatine...). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comment: This struck as a very good article (being made better by the current copy edits) with a messy reference section, so as I had some time on my hands I spent the last week tiding up the reference section, in the process of this I also converted the references to the "short format" type - I hope everybody is OK with this. --Thefrood talk 20:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the cleanup. I think I'll start using the "short format" ref type myself, inspired by what you've shown me. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.