Talk:Adam Naruszewicz

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by MeegsC (talk) 16:23, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Portrait of Adam Naruszewicz (1733-1796)
Portrait of Adam Naruszewicz (1733-1796)
  • ... that bishop Adam Naruszewicz (pictured) was a prominent writer of the Polish Enlightenment, and one of the first modern historians of Poland? Source: Platt (1977), Wolska (2005) - only the latter is online, both are in Polish, sorry

Created by Piotrus (talk). Self-nominated at 05:00, 28 April 2021 (UTC). 5x expansion[reply]

  • I will review this, and will get back here once the review is done. Yakikaki (talk) 12:51, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recent enough 5x expansion; well written and within policy. It's a very enjoyable addition to Wikipedia. Hook us good, supported by inline citation and Polish language sources AGF. The picture is tagged as public domain; QPQ has been done. I can see no problems, this is ready for DYK. Yakikaki (talk) 13:49, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Suffragan bishop"?[edit]

"Suffragan bishop" is used in its Anglican sense in this article. I am not sure what the original sources have to say, but the accurate, modern Roman Catholic term would be "auxiliary bishop". This terminology was even true 100 years ago in the Catholic Encyclopedia. 2600:8800:1880:68:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 06:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to pl wiki, if I follow the interwikis, the correct term may be Coadjutor bishop. What do you think? (Also if you register an account you could've been pinged about this, now I have to hope you'll check back here one day...). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:25, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Coadjutor is certainly possible, yes. 2600:8800:1880:68:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 07:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to hear back from you; I've made the changes in the articles. TIA and I hope you'll stick around, many articles could benefit from fact-checking. In fact I am sure some other articles about Polish bishops may have the same terminology issues, please ping me if you find them or WP:BEBOLD and correct them yourself. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:03, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Adam Naruszewicz/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Shushugah (talk · contribs) 17:28, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Beginning review[edit]

Hey again Piotrus, I am looking forward to reviewing your article today and working with you. I typically give a week for any corrections to be made and make my final assessment then. I will provide a progress bar and more descriptive feedback to help you make improvements. Kind regards ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:28, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Review[edit]

The prose/grammar and writing style is excellent. Images are freely licensed and relevant. There are however, some issued with the layout style for example:

  • I assume you are referring to the 2005 work. Well, it's not like he wrote about himself, it's just a collection of his works, recently republished, with a lengthy chapter written by a modern scholar. I've changed the URL from google books to a Polish academic site legally hosting the pdf of the book and c/e the cite, but I am frankly a bit puzzled how to list Naruszewicz there. He is not the author of the cited chapter about himself (that's Wolska, who is also the book editor). But the book, after her chapter, reprints his poetry, so he is, errr.... dunno? Most library sources cite the book as "authored" by two authors, Wolska and Naruszewicz, but remember, this is like a collected work of Sheaskspere, with the introduction by a modern scholar. Is it really a "book by Sheakspere"? See how the cite looks now. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:08, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the breadth requirement, in pl:Adam Naruszewicz is more material that is missing from this article, for example, information about his parents, teaching geography, and information about his writing genres,
  • True, but I didn't see a RS for it. I am sure it exists, but I wasn't looking for all the details, the article can be expanded but I think that's a FA-level issue. As his parents don't appear notable, I think it's a minor issue. As for his writing genres, I think we cover it well - do note the pl wiki is mostly unreferenced. That said, I totally agree there's plenty of scope for expansion - the chapters in the Wolska books (two tomes) are probably a but under 100 pages and there are other Polish monographs and academic articles about him, and if you think the article is right now not comprehensive enough for GA, that's fair. Ps. This is a good source in English, but I don't have full access to it right now :( PPS. Got access. Give me a few days, I'll read this and see about beefing up this article further. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:08, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • More clarity about the distinction between the designation modern historian and early historian are needed. They sound contradictory and yet he's described as both in the Adam Naruszewicz#Significance section.
  • The one prose nitpick I would have is, the lede repeats rather often his various Bishop roles. First in the opening line and again in 2nd line; all of which is practically the entire text in the main body of the article. Either more information should be added, or the lede should be slightly trimmed since it doesn't adequately describe the entire article in proportion.

I am looking forward to working with you again. Kind regards ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 22:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Shushugah I am done with expanding this with the biography chapter by Stanley; we are now using three chapter-long biographical accounts, which I think should be good enough for GA as I assume they should tackle all major aspects of his life. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion requested in the hopes of finding reviewer to take over[edit]

Regrettably, Shushugah has been inactive of late and unresponsive to queries, so I've changed the nomination status to "2nd opinion" in the hopes of finding a new reviewer to take over the review. Thank you to whoever steps up. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion[edit]

I am ready to provide a second opinion. I need a couple of days to complete my review. Borsoka (talk) 16:51, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • ... szlachta nobility... Pleonasm?  Done Arguably. Changed into an explanation. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:42, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarify that Polesie was part of Poland/the Commonwealth in this period.  Done
  • ... in nearby Pinsk... I understand Pinsk is located in Polesie.  Done Right, removed the unnecessary word 'nearby'.
  • Do we know why he joined the Jesuit Order?  In progress I am unsure, as in, I didn't see (or recall seeing) an explanation. The best I found is a meaningless (IMHO) comment in [1] that his decision to do so was "unsurprising" as a "reasonable career choice", which is pretty much not saying anything, really. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:42, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...Collegium Nobilium Societatis Jesu... Perhaps "...the Jesuits' Collegium Nobilium (or high school for noblemen)"?  Done Added an explanation. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:42, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • That the collegium was operated by the Jesuits is still mentioned in Latin. I think "...the Jesuits' elite boarding university, the Collegium Nobilium..." would be better.
  • From around 1758 to 1762 he studied theology at the Collège de la Trinité in Lyon, France, and on 17 January 1762 received his holy orders in the nearby Vienne. Consider splitting it to two sentences. Borsoka (talk) 16:51, 2 April 2022 (UTC)  Done[reply]
  • Also in 1771... Delete "Also".  Done
  • ...he received the Medal Merentibus [pl] from the King—an award in recognition of his literary achievements. His literary achievements are not mentioned in previous sentences.  Done Rewrote the sentence. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:24, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • After the suppression of the Jesuit Order in 1773, Poniatowski arranged for him a number of positions, including eventually a titular bishop's seat (he was a Bishop of Smolensk from 1775–1788 as coadjutor bishop and from 1788–1790 as full diocesan bishop, and later bishop of Łuck from 1790–1796), as well as more regular positions at parishes. Some reorganization is needed. 1. The King's surname is not mentioned in previous sentences. 2. He was not coadjutor bishop of Smolensk, but coadjutor bishop of the bishop of Smolensk as the titular bishop of Emmaus. 3. Are you sure that he held regular positions at parishes after he was consecrated bishop of Emmaus? 4. Coadjutor bishops are not suffragan bishops, so the wl should be changed.  Done I think - please review. You are right that his parishes were before his bishop times, in fact, he only had them briefly in summer 1774 before moving onto the "bishop career track". I've added some dates that the sources provided and tried to fix the links/titles. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:24, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1776 he received the Order of Saint Stanislaus and in 1783, the Order of the White Eagle Perhaps we should clarify that these are Polish/Polish-Lithuanian orders.  Done Well, instead I clarified he received them from Poniatowski. Note I've also standardized how we refer to the king (there were some unnecessary IMHO redirects and an inconsistent capitalization of King/king I've noticed). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:24, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great Lithuanian Scribe I assume "Great Lithuanian Writer/Author" would be a better translation. The wikilink is not helpful.  In progress If you are basing this on Offices in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, note that this is mine very, very old article, based on Polish sources. I am very much certain tha tthe title of pisarz, in this context, should be translated as scribe, not writer or author. This translation is not my invention, it is used in some sources: [2]. At some point I should revisit that old Offices... article and do a major copyedit... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:32, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a senator... We have not been informed that he was a senator.  In progress I reworded this sentence. I think that the position of senator was automatically awarded to some(?) bishops or other holders of court ranks, and he became qualified for it at some point as a side perk of one of his titles, but the sources are not clear which one was it. A quick glance at my old Offices... article suggests that it was a perk associated with the court position of the Great Scribe. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:32, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider mentioning some important events of the history of the Commonwealth which are directly linked to Naruszevicz's life (namely the partitions of the Commonwealth and the conflicts between reformists and traditionalist). For instance, what was the Great Sejm, the 1791 Constitution, who were its Friends, etc.  Done If only a little, keeping due weight in mind. Feel free to add more if you think it's relevant for someone more familiar with the topic. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:42, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...he has seen as disciplined parliamentarian... I think this part should be reworded.  In progress Any suggestions on how? The sources stressed he was very dedicated as in, unlike many other deputies, past or present, he attended almost all the sessions, and was seen as paying attention, etc. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:42, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...his parish... Did he have a parish? He was a bishop.  Done Changed to 'residence' as I am indeed not sure if there was a parish there, and if so, was it his to administer. Church organization is rather arcane to me. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:42, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...seat of the bishops of Łuck... Perhaps "his episcopal see" (with a wl)?  In progress Sounds good, but what link? Would you mind copyeditign this detail? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:42, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...he suffered from a heart attack Perhaps "he had a heart attack"?  In progress I have no preference, if you think it sounds better, be my guest and change it. TIA! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:42, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Borsoka (talk) 15:30, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion requested for being deeply involved in editing[edit]

As I was involved in editing, I am no more in the position to provide a neutral review. I think a new reviewer could suggest further important changes. I placed tags in the article to indicate some problematic sentences and unverified information in the article. I think this is an interesting article about a non well known Polish scholar and politician. Thank for the nominator for expanding it. Borsoka (talk) 02:35, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Borsoka Thank you for the review. I think I've addressed the tags you've added, please let me know if I missed anything. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:48, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I think the tags are addressed. Thank you. Borsoka (talk) 02:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Borsoka thank you for taking over. As the initial review, I want to say congratulations to @Piotrus on a Good Article! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 19:25, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Adam_Naruszewicz&oldid=1216515773"