![]() | Piotr Skarga has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on February 2, 2018. | ||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Why polish? he was lithuanian!!!!
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Ammodramus ( talk · contribs) 00:27, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
This looks like an interesting article; I'll be glad to take on the task of reviewing it, and I look forward to learning more about its subject and about Polish history generally. I'll probably go through the article and make minor changes, then work on the review in userspace. I don't have a lot of experience doing GA reviews—I see that the article's creator has considerably more—so progress might be somewhat slow, but I'll try to have a review up within a week. Ammodramus ( talk) 00:27, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Interesting article, interesting subject. The writing is generally quite good; I made a few minor tweaks, but didn't find much that needed to be cleaned up.
The only critical flaw that I've found is the lack of background material. English-speaking readers, at least in the United States, are likely to know very little about Polish history. It'd strengthen the article considerably if it included some brief passages describing the Reformation and Counter-Reformation in Poland around Skarga's time, and quick sentences explaining things like the Golden Freedoms, the Union of Brest, the Zebrzydowski Rebellion, etc. These don't have to be detailed—that's why we've got the Wikilinks—but they should be enough to allow someone with little knowledge of 16th-century Poland to read through the article without having to break off and follow links.
I notice that almost all of the article is sourced to Tazbir (1978). This isn't going to keep it from reaching GA status, but I think that it would be stronger if it used more sources. Also, the references section could be streamlined by cutting the individual citations down to "Tazbir (1978), pp. xx–xx". This, too, isn't GA-critical, but I think it'd slightly improve the article.
I'm working on a more formal assessment per the GA criteria, with much more detail; these are just my initial impressions after reading it through several times. On the whole, a very nice article, and one that, while it's not at the GA level yet, could probably reach that level without too much more work. Ammodramus ( talk) 01:26, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
With apologies for the time that it's taken for me to prepare this, my review. -- Ammodramus ( talk) 16:45, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Writing is very good. There's one potentially misleading passage that should be addressed: see "Bossuet", below. |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Should the lead include something about Skarga's popularity in 19th century? See "Cult of Skarga", below. |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | OK |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | OK |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | Everything seems to be well sourced (albeit almost entirely to one source) |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | This is the only major problem that I've found with the article: it doesn't provide enough background information for the lay reader. See "Explanations and context", below. |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | OK |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Article doesn't cover any current controversies. |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | No edit wars, etc. |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | All images tagged for free use |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Good images, good captions |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. |
Since most American readers, and possibly readers in other English-speaking countries as well, are likely to know little of Polish history, this article should present some background information on the Confederation of Skarga's time, and should include brief explanations of some of the terms and names used. I'd suggest two paragraphs, probably placed in a "Background" section before "Life":
There are some other names, terms, and concepts that need brief explanations: generally, only a word or a short phrase.
Minor things all done. I am however still uneasy on the background sections. We don't, I believe, usually add such sections to the article. All biographies are "situational", but we leave this to be described in the context of other articles. I am sorry, I read the article several times, looked at a number of other GAs, and I just cannot figure out how to fit that in. I thought about adding few sentences, but I cannot see what could be added that wouldn't, IMHO, be mostly off topic. I'll ping some users familiar with Polish history, perhaps they will be able to suggest what and where could be added: User:Poeticbent, User:Nihil novi, User:Orczar, User:Volunteer Marek. Cheers, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Background
- In the 16th century, when most European monarchies wielded considerable autocratic power, those of Poland and of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth were relatively weak, with much of the political power in the hands of the szlachta (nobility). Under a system known as the Golden Freedoms, the szlachta elected the king, could veto his acts in the Sejm (parliament), and had the right to stage a rebellion (rokosz) against him in defense of their rights and privileges.
- The Golden Freedoms also granted religious freedom to the szlachta; so rather than enforcing a single state religion, the Commonwealth in the 16th century was a patchwork of Christian denominations. About half of the country, including the capital of Krakow, was Roman Catholic. Much of the eastern part, in present-day Belarus and Ukraine, was Ruthenian Orthodox, aligned with the Patriarch of Constantinople. Several regions in the north, adjacent to Prussian territory, were Lutheran; other regions were Calvinist, including a large territory around Lublin. A number of Arian and Anabaptist congregations also operated in the western part of the country. In the course of the Counter-Reformation, the Society of Jesus was active in the Confederacy, seeking to restore Roman Catholicism to its former dominant position.
I've copy-edited " Piotr Skarga".
About "Jan Tęczyński": I don't think this could have been the same "
Jan Tęczyński" (1581–1637) to whom this article now links, and whom the Polish Wikipedia calls "
Jan Magnus Tęczyński, for whom it gives the years 1579–1637. Obviously Skarga could not have tutored this "Jan Tęczyński" in 1557, as our "Piotr Skarga" article states — 22 years before Tęczyński's birth!
Nihil novi ( talk) 21:31, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Dudley Miles ( talk · contribs) 22:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
I will take this.
Dudley Miles (
talk)
22:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Further comments
Piotrus, Dudley Miles, where does this nomination stand? It's been about six weeks since the last edit on the article, and the subsequent comments by Dudley Miles above. If the review is to stay open, some progress needs to be made soon. Thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 03:00, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
![]() | Piotr Skarga has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on February 2, 2018. | ||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Why polish? he was lithuanian!!!!
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Ammodramus ( talk · contribs) 00:27, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
This looks like an interesting article; I'll be glad to take on the task of reviewing it, and I look forward to learning more about its subject and about Polish history generally. I'll probably go through the article and make minor changes, then work on the review in userspace. I don't have a lot of experience doing GA reviews—I see that the article's creator has considerably more—so progress might be somewhat slow, but I'll try to have a review up within a week. Ammodramus ( talk) 00:27, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Interesting article, interesting subject. The writing is generally quite good; I made a few minor tweaks, but didn't find much that needed to be cleaned up.
The only critical flaw that I've found is the lack of background material. English-speaking readers, at least in the United States, are likely to know very little about Polish history. It'd strengthen the article considerably if it included some brief passages describing the Reformation and Counter-Reformation in Poland around Skarga's time, and quick sentences explaining things like the Golden Freedoms, the Union of Brest, the Zebrzydowski Rebellion, etc. These don't have to be detailed—that's why we've got the Wikilinks—but they should be enough to allow someone with little knowledge of 16th-century Poland to read through the article without having to break off and follow links.
I notice that almost all of the article is sourced to Tazbir (1978). This isn't going to keep it from reaching GA status, but I think that it would be stronger if it used more sources. Also, the references section could be streamlined by cutting the individual citations down to "Tazbir (1978), pp. xx–xx". This, too, isn't GA-critical, but I think it'd slightly improve the article.
I'm working on a more formal assessment per the GA criteria, with much more detail; these are just my initial impressions after reading it through several times. On the whole, a very nice article, and one that, while it's not at the GA level yet, could probably reach that level without too much more work. Ammodramus ( talk) 01:26, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
With apologies for the time that it's taken for me to prepare this, my review. -- Ammodramus ( talk) 16:45, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Writing is very good. There's one potentially misleading passage that should be addressed: see "Bossuet", below. |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Should the lead include something about Skarga's popularity in 19th century? See "Cult of Skarga", below. |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | OK |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | OK |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | Everything seems to be well sourced (albeit almost entirely to one source) |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | This is the only major problem that I've found with the article: it doesn't provide enough background information for the lay reader. See "Explanations and context", below. |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | OK |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Article doesn't cover any current controversies. |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | No edit wars, etc. |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | All images tagged for free use |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Good images, good captions |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. |
Since most American readers, and possibly readers in other English-speaking countries as well, are likely to know little of Polish history, this article should present some background information on the Confederation of Skarga's time, and should include brief explanations of some of the terms and names used. I'd suggest two paragraphs, probably placed in a "Background" section before "Life":
There are some other names, terms, and concepts that need brief explanations: generally, only a word or a short phrase.
Minor things all done. I am however still uneasy on the background sections. We don't, I believe, usually add such sections to the article. All biographies are "situational", but we leave this to be described in the context of other articles. I am sorry, I read the article several times, looked at a number of other GAs, and I just cannot figure out how to fit that in. I thought about adding few sentences, but I cannot see what could be added that wouldn't, IMHO, be mostly off topic. I'll ping some users familiar with Polish history, perhaps they will be able to suggest what and where could be added: User:Poeticbent, User:Nihil novi, User:Orczar, User:Volunteer Marek. Cheers, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Background
- In the 16th century, when most European monarchies wielded considerable autocratic power, those of Poland and of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth were relatively weak, with much of the political power in the hands of the szlachta (nobility). Under a system known as the Golden Freedoms, the szlachta elected the king, could veto his acts in the Sejm (parliament), and had the right to stage a rebellion (rokosz) against him in defense of their rights and privileges.
- The Golden Freedoms also granted religious freedom to the szlachta; so rather than enforcing a single state religion, the Commonwealth in the 16th century was a patchwork of Christian denominations. About half of the country, including the capital of Krakow, was Roman Catholic. Much of the eastern part, in present-day Belarus and Ukraine, was Ruthenian Orthodox, aligned with the Patriarch of Constantinople. Several regions in the north, adjacent to Prussian territory, were Lutheran; other regions were Calvinist, including a large territory around Lublin. A number of Arian and Anabaptist congregations also operated in the western part of the country. In the course of the Counter-Reformation, the Society of Jesus was active in the Confederacy, seeking to restore Roman Catholicism to its former dominant position.
I've copy-edited " Piotr Skarga".
About "Jan Tęczyński": I don't think this could have been the same "
Jan Tęczyński" (1581–1637) to whom this article now links, and whom the Polish Wikipedia calls "
Jan Magnus Tęczyński, for whom it gives the years 1579–1637. Obviously Skarga could not have tutored this "Jan Tęczyński" in 1557, as our "Piotr Skarga" article states — 22 years before Tęczyński's birth!
Nihil novi ( talk) 21:31, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Dudley Miles ( talk · contribs) 22:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
I will take this.
Dudley Miles (
talk)
22:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Further comments
Piotrus, Dudley Miles, where does this nomination stand? It's been about six weeks since the last edit on the article, and the subsequent comments by Dudley Miles above. If the review is to stay open, some progress needs to be made soon. Thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 03:00, 25 July 2015 (UTC)