Talk:Stefan Czarniecki/GA1

Latest comment: 11 years ago by Wizardman in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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

Reviewer: Albacore (talk · contribs) 04:26, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

I will review this article on Saturday. Albacore (talk) 04:26, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Comments:
  • Instead of citing the Leszek Podhorodecki (1 January 1998). Stefan Czarniecki. reference over and over, why don't you create a "bibliography" section and use a template like {{Harvard citation no brackets}} to cite the pages? This would apply to all books used more than once.
  • According to WP:FURTHER the Further reading section should not contain works that are used in the Reference section, unless the References section is too long for a reader to use as part of a general reading list. If a bibliography section were to be added as described above, the further reading section could be removed or filled with other works.
The review on prose will begin when the comments have been responded to. Albacore (talk) 14:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Prose
  • The date of his birth is only an assumption, as no documents exist to prove it without a doubt; most historians accept the 1599 date, although Zdzisław Spieralski argued for 1604 1. Period needed. 2. Multiple references (three or four) are needed for the claim most historians accept the 1599 date
  • Polish-Swedish War same as above, twice in article
    • Done.
  • On August 6-7 ndash
    • Done.
  • fought.[11][8] switch references
    • Done.
  • he learned Western tactics, comma unnecessary
    • Done.
  • Returning from it, according to Nagielski witnessed the massacre of Polish prisoners in the aftermath of the Battle of Batoh;[21] This 1. Caps 2. The statement after according should be rewritten.
    • Done.
  • Who is "Podhorodecki"? Please elaborate a bit.
    • Done (earlier in the first para).
I am up to the "The Deluge" section. Albacore (talk) 15:29, 3 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
More:
  • Consider linking abdication and regimentarz
    • Linked abdication; regimentarz already linked upon first use.
  • He led guerrilla warfare against Swedish troops of Charles X, a type of a campaign he authored, despite the objections of the then-returned under the royal banner again hetmans. I don't follow what is meant by the "then-returned under the royal banner again hetmans".
    • It means that after betraying the king, the hetmans changed the flag again and returned to him; then objected to Czarniecki's tactics. I agree the sentence is poorly worded; I attempted to rewrite it.
  • were proven to be rather vulnerable to Czarniecki's guerrilla-style warfare. 1. were proven --> proved 2. de-link guerrilla
    • Done.
  • the Danish-Swedish War, ->> the Danish–Swedish War
  • Instead of ... would attempt to involve him ... why not just "attempted to involve him"? A sentence explaining whether he became involved would be nice too.
    • I believe he succeeded but I won't be able to verify the source till December.
  • I feel that File:Stafan Czarniecki 1.PNG should be used in the "Legacy" section.
    • How about you change them then? Art is in the eye of the beholder, I'll comment if I disagree after your switch.
  • During the period of Enlightenment in Poland he was written about by poets and writers such as Stanisław Potocki, Franciszek Karpiński, Julian Ursyn Niemcewicz and Franciszek Ksawery Dmowski, and a biography by Michał Krajewski, cementing his legend of a hero rescuing Poland from anarchy and invasion, a legend that became even stronger during the times of the partitions of Poland in the 19th century, where the artists of the Polish romanticism period used him as a symbol of patriotism, and a reminder of military successes. Definitely break into two or more sentences
      • Done.
  • Finally, I would recommend that you check the Article in Polish to see if there is anything to add.
    • I believe I did so when writing this article, and all interesting items I was able to reference were added.
I will pass when these comments are addressed. Albacore (talk) 18:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
Replied to all points. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 21:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Issues have now been fixed, so the article passes. Wizardman 03:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)Reply