Talk:10 złotych note

Image copyright problem with File:10zl a.jpg

The image File:10zl a.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• File:10zl r.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Mmm...

... the article says "In 1950, new notes, which were dated 1948, were introduced for 2, 5, 10, 20, 50, 100 and 500 złotych, but 1000 złotych notes were added in 1962.[2] 200 and 2000 złotych notes were added in 1976 and 1977, followed by 5000 złotych notes in 1982" and it has a picture of the ten zloty note with Jozef Bem on it (that should be added and linked). But I'm pretty sure the Bem note was issued in the 1980's (probably 1982), not in 1950 as the article suggests.

More generally, I'm not so sure that this [1] is a reliable source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

In fact, it's just an older version of Wikipedia.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

But, instead of obliging another editor into doing it, you could have been WP:BOLD and fixed it, but with civility of course. – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 18:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, you nominated it for GA. I actually tried to find something about it but wasn't going to spend that much time on it.VolunteerMarek 18:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:10 złotych note/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Czarkoff (talk · contribs) 12:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Status

This section is supposed to be edited only by reviewer(s).

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

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:

Discussion

The only (minor) issue I see with this article is the Infobox: it shouldn't have blanks. Either fill in the Designer and Design date fields or remove the pipe symbols (|) from the code. Otherwise good work! — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, just noticed that in the article's body You spell the captions from the notes in ALL CAPS, while on the notes they are spelled in Small Caps. I think that should be fixed. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello Dmitrij D. Czarkoff!
The first point has its own issues, unfortunately.

1. If I remove the pipes, then the infobox is ruined. (For a demonstration, click here.)
2. Can I just write in 'Unknown.'?

I am onto the the second point. – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 19:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm busy fixing the Infobox. At least it hides the unused strings now. As far as I can see, the Small Caps are only used in the name of the bank. Template {{smallcaps}} should help with this issue. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I atually fixed Infobox, now it hides empty fields. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I already stated this above but let me repeat. In additional to some other problems (about which I emailed Plarem and got no response so far), the article uses Wikipedia as a source and contains some inaccuracies. It's not up to GA standard.VolunteerMarek 17:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Where is Wikipedia used as a source? You are right, kiwix fork is a red flag, and this has been raised on talk few days ago, and ignored by the nominator and the reviewer. On a quick glance, lead is poorly formatted (seems too short, and too many paragraphs), there are problem with WP:BTW (for example, word denar is never ilinked, nor is Bank Polski, grosz is incorrectly redlinked to groszy, there is a typo in "Bank Kassowy", the use of capital letters seems problematic (I am pretty sure MOS discoruages them), there is inconsistent use of Polish diacritics ("dziesięć" vs "DZIESIEC"). Fair use images probably need additional rationale. I am sorry, Czarkoff, but if this is how you review articles, I am afraid I have to take this to WP:GAN and ask for a re-review of all of them. PS. This was a quick review, prose was not reviewed, and only few sample paras were checked for style issues. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with all the points listed above. But I do not take full responsibility for all of them. I take full responsibility for:

1. "You are right, kiwix fork is a red flag, and this has been raised on talk few days ago, and ignored by the nominator and the reviewer." I have added the kiwix ref because I could find nothing else, will be removed in a short space of time.
2. "On a quick glance, lead is poorly formatted (seems too short, and too many paragraphs)"; I am not a good lead writer.
3. "there is inconsistent use of Polish diacritics ("dziesięć" vs "DZIESIEC")."; That was just not noticed, therefore not fixed.
4. "Fair use images probably need additional rationale." Those are my first non-free pictures uploaded to Wikipedia, I was not fully sure how to write a fair-use rationale.
5. "the use of capital letters seems problematic (I am pretty sure MOS discoruages them)".

But, on the other hand I do not take responsibility for:

1. "there are problem with WP:BTW (for example, word denar is never ilinked, nor is Bank Polski, grosz is incorrectly redlinked to groszy, there is a typo in "Bank Kassowy"" That is MathewTownsend (talk · contribs)'s work.

Feel free to re-review this article. The only question I have is about the WP:WIKICUP points. Do I get them now, or, if it is reassessed, after the second assessment (/GA2)?

Volunteer Marek, in your email to me, you say:

"Problem w tym ze doslowne tlumaczenie copyrighted text jest tez copyrighted"

(English): The problem is that an excellent translation of copyrighted text is also copyrighted.

And in WP:COPYVIO, there is not a word about translated work. Please explain.

– Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 18:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding kiwix, [2]. Moving on, if you are the nominator, it assumes you take upon yourself to fix the works by others. So youll have to address all issues, including those introduced by others. Regarding Wikicup, ask the judges. It also depends on whether this so-far still succesful nom is failed, and re-reviewed. I wouldn't worry about Wikicup, there are months left in the 1st round, and last time, a single DYK was enough to move to the second round anyway. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 19:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I also noticed that this must be a rushed review, as after most of my reviews, I get a bowl of strawberries, or a barnstar for my good work. Now I got nothing. :( – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 18:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

You're right that there's no mention of verbatim translations in WP:COPYVIO, which is a problem with that page - I brought the issue up recently here [3]. It's basically a common error and many people are not aware of the fact that stuff from other languages needs to be translated AND paraphrased.

Specifically here, the "Design" section is a verbatim translation of the source (even the same phrases are left in all caps) [4] and needs to be rewritten/paraphrased.

The other thing that needs to be corrected is the issue date for the "2, 5, 10, 20" notes in the "Third złoty banknotes" section. The 50, 100, and 500 probably were in fact issued in 1948 - I don't know off the top of my head, but I'm dead sure that the 10 and 20 came out in early 80's because I remember it. This is the section which is using kiwix/wikipedia as a source and it is incorrect. In fact, it's a pretty good example of why Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a source.

VolunteerMarek 18:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually with the ten zloty note, I think it got introduced in 1950, retired in 1960 (replaced by a coin with Mickiewicz on it) and then a new one was issued in 1982 or so.VolunteerMarek 18:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

It's been two days and the copyvio issues have not been addressed. I've removed the offending section. The article should be delisted from GA.VolunteerMarek 18:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

B-class review for WP:POLAND

Failed, due to issues raised in the GA review which ended in total removal of several sections (design, security). Without them, the article cannot even claim to be roughly comprehensive. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 22:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Changing złotych to zlotys: BRD

TheCurrencyGuy believes that we should spell złoty as "zloty" and create an unnatural plural "zlotys". I disagree, just as I would if we still had Italian Lire (not Liras!). The wp:common name is złotych. Until the RtM at Polish złoty#Requested move 10 September 2022 is resolved, it is wp:disruptive to try to sneak the equivalent change through on related articles. Please stop. John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:52, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

The National Bank of Poland uses "zlotys" on its English website[5], thus I did not think it controversial. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 03:37, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Given that you made the change while the discussion at talk:Złoty was ongoing and clearly controversial, I'm afraid I have difficulty understanding your logic.

For as long as the title of the article is "10 złotych note", the content should use the same style (perhaps with a footnote explaining the Polish declension?). Conversely, I see no problem with you creating redirect articles 10 zlotys note and ten zlotys note. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:48, 18 September 2022 (UTC)