Justynian Szczytt (d. 1677) was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (January 17, 2015). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Justynian Szczytt (d. 1677) was nominated as a History good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (October 2, 2013). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance). Poland Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Few things could be expanded on:

• "who spent 15 years in Moscow's captivity" - why?
  • There is no mention in my sources about the reason. Kmicic ( talk) 20:40, 17 March 2012 (UTC) reply
• we know nothing of his education, youth, date and place of birth? If so, say this in the opening section, and reference it (or if nobody says so directly, note that "... and none of he biographies of him discuss it" or something along those lines;
  • Done. Kmicic ( talk) 20:40, 17 March 2012 (UTC) reply
• Sapieha House - not a term e really use, change it to magnate Sapieha family
  • Done. Kmicic ( talk) 20:40, 17 March 2012 (UTC) reply
• "giving new king a sabre" - sabre? Not szabla?
  • Yes, szabla. Done Kmicic ( talk) 20:40, 17 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Technical:

• on English Wikipedia, unlike on Polish one, references go AFTER the stop sign, not before. Please ensure all citations are following that rule.
  • Done Kmicic ( talk) 20:40, 17 March 2012 (UTC) reply
• why is "Election Sejm" sometimes capitalized, and sometimes not? Be consistent, please.
  • I've changed all to capitalized version. Kmicic ( talk) 20:40, 17 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Language:

• there are numerous issues with grammar/word choice, I fixed a few but more remain. This the biggest problem of the article, and sadly, not one I can fix: even if I could fix some issues, my articles always need more assistance due to language for GA+ levels, so it's pointless to rely on my help here. This will need a native speaker copyedit before GA, or even B. I'd recommend asking User:Nihil novi, he may be interested in this subject.

-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 20:54, 16 December 2011 (UTC) reply

I added {{ clarify}} tags in a few places where the article wasn't clear:

• Krzysztof Szczytt, owner of Biała What is Biała, a village? How did Szczytt own a village? Also, it's spelled Białe later in the article. Which is the correct spelling?
• extraordinary parliament What is this? There are links that help explain coronation sejm and election sejm, but extraordinary parliament and abdication sejm are undefined and have no Wikipedia articles. The article says the abdication sejm met after the king abdicated, so it makes it a little clear, but what is an extraordinary parliament?
• Szczytt had the following villages What does it mean to say he had the villages? Was he ruler over them?
• He also had as pawn the following villages Same question: What does that mean?

Thanks. —  Malik Shabazz  ^Talk/ _Stalk 19:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Biała was my mistake, it should be Białe. Extraordinary parlaimant was a special parliament which was convened e.g. in danger of war, etc. Szczytt was an owner. Pawn wasn't the best word, I exchanged this for a lien. Thanks! Kmicic ( talk) 15:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC) reply

Few final things:

add Polish name for "Justice Szczytt"

clarify banishment: who issued it, was it pl:banicja, was it retracted?

link places in estate part, villages and such are notable. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC) reply

I hope that I've corrected everything :) Kmicic ( talk) 18:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC) reply

All right, B-class, will need more work for GA (identify proper English names for nameplaces...). -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:15, 20 March 2013 (UTC) reply

This review is transcluded from Talk:Justynian Szczytt (d. 1677)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Quadell ( talk · contribs) 17:57, 2 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Nominator: Kmicic

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.	There are many very short paragraphs, some with just a single sentence. The paragraphs should be varied to improve the prose. The fact that he was a Polish noble should be mentioned in the first sentence of the lead section. This would provide context. "Marriage and children" is a separate section from "Family". But one's wife and children are part of one's family. These sections should be merged, or one should be a subsection of another.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	A disambiguation hatnote is needed at the top of the page. This article relies heavily on lists. Many of these should be converted into prose, especially the list of villages he held a lien on. Overlinking: This article links Polotsk and Chamberlain (office) twice in the lead. It includes redlinks to the names of many villages which are not notable enough to have articles on them. It also links to Kasper Niesiecki twice, and redlinks to Teodor Zychlinski four times. The lead section should summarize all sections of the article, but only information from the "life" section is summarized in the lead. The link to Kazimierz Jan Sapieha goes to a disambiguation page, and it's not clear which person you mean.
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.	The notes sometimes uses an appropriate abbreviated citation to a source listed in the reference section. For instance, the note "Haratym, p. 563." refers to the full Haratym citation in the references. On the other hand, sometimes each note repeats information that is already is the references. The notes that refer to Zychlinski could all be shortened to something like "Zychlinski, p. 361."
	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).	Everything is sourced.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Not a problem.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	I understand that little has been written about this person, but the lack of information in the article is striking. I would compare it to the featured articles Eadbald of Kent, Coenred of Mercia, and Eardwulf of Northumbria, and it would be instructive to see the sorts of material used in these articles.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Not a problem.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Not a problem.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Not a problem.
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.	The copyright tag for File:Niesiecki321.JPG indicates that it was first published in the U.S. If that is not the case, the tag should be changed.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	It is unclear what the "Herbarz polski" image is showing me. It looks like an image of text in Polish from a source. This is not clearly relevant to the article.
	7. Overall assessment.	This does not meet all the GA criteria at this time. If the issues here are resolved, feel free to renominate the article in the future. – Quadell ( talk) 18:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC) reply

This review is transcluded from Talk:Justynian Szczytt (d. 1677)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: 3family6 ( talk · contribs) 03:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC) reply

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is " clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   The prose is clear and concise, with no errors. Earwig's tool brought up a 0.0% chance of copyvios, so definitely all set on that front.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC) reply

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   Many of the paragraphs are short, single-sentence blurbs. Try to meld things together in larger paragraphs, as opposed to breaking them up into small chunks. This was something that the previous review recommended. Also, some parts of the article prose become very repetitive (e.g., "Szczytt was an owner of the several villages."; "Szczytt was also owner of parts of some villages.") As an example of how to proceed, I will give two paragraphs from the article, and then a re-written, single-paragraph, improved version:

"Szczytt was an owner of the several villages. From his father he inherited Białe. Later he bought some more: Truchonowicz, Kozłów and Słobódki from Jerzy Atełchowski, Hubin and island on Otułow's river from Jakub Iwanowicz Suprynowicz Bużycki and his wife Halsza in 1654.

Szczytt was also owner of parts of some villages. He bought part of Tabołki and Prozaroki from his brother-in-law Stefan Tukowicz (first in 1663, second in 1666) and part of Sanniki from Michał Skarżyński in 1674. He was also mentioned as owner of Komorowszczyzna, Ołoskowo and Pohorełe."

Re-write:

"Szczytt owned several villages. He inherited Białe from his father, and later purchased Truchonowicz, Kozłów and Słobódki from Jerzy Atełchowski and Hubin and an island on Otułow's river from Jakub Iwanowicz Suprynowicz Bużycki and his wife Halsza in 1654. He was also mentioned [by whom? the article should state this] as owner of Komorowszczyzna, Ołoskowo and Pohorełe. In addition to these properties, he bought parts of Tabołki and Prozaroki from his brother-in-law Stefan Tukowicz (in the years 1663 and 1666, respectively), and part of Sanniki from Michał Skarżyński in 1674."

• Also, in addition to the prose work, the redlinks for the villages should be removed, unless you have a reasonably good reason to suppose that articles will be written about them.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC) reply

1. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   Well-formatted references, which follow a consistent layout.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC) reply

   B. Citations to reliable sources, where necessary:

   Content is cited to three Polish academic works. I'm accepting them AGF.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC) reply

   C. No original research:

   All content is verifiable.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC) reply

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Like the previous review noted, there isn't much written about Szczytt, but the article seems lacking in information. I don't have a problem with it being short. However, there is very little historical analysis in this article. Why is Szczytt important historically? What do the three historians referenced say about the impact and contributions of Szczytt? For an example of a short article which is a GA, see Yo'nal Ahk III. Note that the article includes analysis of historical events and discussions of the historical impact of the subject.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC) reply

   B. Focused:

   Is focused on the subject, no extraneous detail.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC) reply

3. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Neutral, no bias.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC) reply

4. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Highly stable, mostly a single-author article.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC) reply

5. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Images are suitably licensed. As I've encountered with many, many other GA noms, an image needed to have a license tag parameter filled out, so I went ahead and did that, since it is a minor issue that won't bias my review.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC) reply

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   The previous GA review questioned the relevance of File:Niesiecki321.JPG. Unlike the second image of the election of Michał Korybut Wiśniowiecki, I don't see the relevance of an image of a section from a book about Szczytt.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC) reply

6. Overall: Significant work still needed, see comments.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC) reply

   Pass or Fail:

   Kmicic - how are things coming along? I haven't seen any response yet to my review, or edits to the article.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC) reply

It's been over seven days since my review, and the nominator hasn't responded. Therefore, I'm failing this nomination. Kmicic, feel free to address the issues I noted above and renominate the article once those changes are made.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Thank you for review. When I will have time, I would improve this article. Regards Kmicic ( talk) 22:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC) reply