Talk:Zygmunt Krasiński/GA1

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

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Amitchell125 (talk · contribs) 18:24, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Happy to review the article.

Review[edit]

General comments that apply throughout the text[edit]

  • Unlink common words and other words such as countries and locations, e.g. Polish; Poland; Paris (seeMOS:OL).
  • Check the Polish Wikipedia for links (e.g.Przedświt (poemat) [pl]) and Psalms of the future (Psalmy przyszłości).
  • I have identified redundant words in some of the comments below, but there are others I have not identified. I recommend you check through the article, and removing any redundant words to keep the text terse. (WP:TERSE).
  • I have also identified where the text is vague—it's worth you checking carefully for examples I may have missed.
  • There are duplicate links which need to be removed, User:Evad37/duplinks-alt is helpful here.
  • The English/Polish titles of Krasiński's works needs look consistent.
    • I'd appreciate advice here. I assume you mean the usage of Polish (English) vs English only. The issue is that The Undivine Comedy is obviously a COMMONNAME in English, and I am not sure we even need to mention its Polish title. Irydion is the same, being a name, but his other works are less famous and don't yet have an article. I did choose the Polish (English) for those; in all honesty this is simply because this is the easiest formatting to use with {{ill}}. The Undivine Comedy is the only exception given the COMMONAME issue. What does the MoS recommend? Should I change The Undivine Comedy to Nie-boska Komedia (The Undivine Comedy) despite COMMONAME? Should we reverse the order, with English first, Polish in parentheses? Or should we ditch Polish names entirely for all of his works? To add an extra complication, some of his works do seem to have more than one translation, for example, Przedświt is translated as Predawn, Dawn, The Moment before Dawn and Morning Twilight (those are just the names from the first 10 hits on Google Book query...). And this may be even worse as the article grows and we mention titles of his even less famous works. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:41, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've read Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lists_of_works#Books_in_languages_other_than_English, but it isn't very helpful. Usually I look for best practise in featured articles, and so found this. Because Krasiński's works were all originally published in Polish (please correct me if I am wrong), they should all—including The Undivine Comedy—be in the format Psalmy przyszłości (Psalms of the Future) the first time they are mentioned. Agaj-Han and Irydion should be left as they are, with attempting to translate them into English. So the only issue I can see is the way the titles are listed in the infobox. I hope this helps. Amitchell125 (talk) 06:27, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus, it looks like the issues marked with red crosses are the last remaining points. Can I check if you think you have addressed them? Amitchell125 (talk) 07:12, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Amitchell125, You mean redundant or vague wording? I tried to fix all of these, unless otherwise noted, although I apologize in advance if I missed something. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:46, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No it all looks OK now, I wanted to check you were happy too.

Lead section / infobox[edit]

  • The information in the lead section is not controversial, and so none of the citations there are needed.
  • The lead section is too short – it needs to “stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic” (MOS:LEAD).
    • Expanded. I feel it can be expanded further, but I am having trouble with this, feel free to help :) --~~
 Partly done I'll take a look, it's always the thing editors find the hardest to do! Amitchell125 (talk) 05:53, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus, I've produced a lead section for the article here, please feel free to use it as you wish. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 14:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, this is much appreciated, I was obviously affected by a writer's block. I've expanded the lead, minus two details I consider trivial. I wonder if we could squeeze in a sentence about the importance of his relationship with his father there as well (for now I've added another sentence about it to his biography). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:58, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. Amitchell125 (talk) 06:00, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1.1 Childhood[edit]

  • Unlink Paris; Warsaw.
  • Ten-year-old – ‘10-year-old’,
  • to Vienna, with his father – ‘to Vienna with his father’
  • himself; teachers and; vacations and; however are redundant.
  • the two-year-old moved with his parents – ‘his parents moved to’.
  • suddenly died – ‘died’?
  • 1823–26 – ‘1823–1826’.
  • would result in Krasiński's expulsion from the university. The incident is redundant, as his expulsion is stated later in the paragraph.
  • Avoid ...Beliński. Beliński....
  • Link law; administration (Public administration).
  • This was serious enough – does This refer to the altercation, or the criticism?
  • Replace the link to Austria.
  • The last paragraph needs to copy edited to improve the English.
  • I have suggested amendments to the text, but the list is not exhaustive. let me know if you want to pause the review to allow time for the article to be copy edited using Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests, I'm happy for you to do that, and I'll continue the review when the copy editing has been done.
  • leading to an altercation - Ref 3 provides more specific details, which could be included.
@Amitchell125: I've done my copyediting of this section; do you think a pass by another editor is still required? This article has already been copyedited in the past by User:Nihil novi, who is a native English speaker, and I think, a copyediting professional. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:54, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: Thanks for the editing you have done so far. As you can see from the comments I have made, there's work to be done before the article can be considered to be "clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience"—perhaps not all copy editors are as good as they could be. It's an interesting and important article, and I think you should try to complete all the review comments before getting it copy edited again. I can pause the review if you want to do this, or fail the nomination and let you improve the article in your own time before possibly re-nominating it. Amitchell125 (talk) 09:54, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Amitchell125 I don't mind waiting for a copyedit, but I do not think it is necessary, since several have been done. In the end, this is simply subjective, I assume Nihil novi, for example, thinks this article is adequately copyedited, and so do I. But of course, nobody here WP:OWNs the article, so I am totally fine with implementing (most) of your changes, and having any number of other people copyedit it. But since I saw two copyeditors edit war over some IMHO inconsequential issues during a particular FAC, forgive me, but I do believe articles at this stage are fine, and any changes are just a form of dead horse "Tomayto or Tomahto", American vs British English, etc. Oh, I didn't link law on purpose, it seems like a generic term that does not require linking, per the MoS policies we described. Lastly, for "Ref 3 provides more specific details, which could be included.", I added the one detail I saw there that wasn't present in our version, do let me know if I missed something more? I was unable to find out what, exactly, the altercation was (a fight, a duel...?). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:04, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, if I see anything obvious copy editing points I'll be bold and edit it myself, feel free to revert. Amitchell125 (talk) 06:03, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1.2 Literary travels[edit]

  • Unlink English.
  • was important to the shaping of the young writer's – ‘helped shape his personality’.
  • The second and third paragraphs could easily be combined to remove a short paragraph.
  • a 5 September 1830 letter to his father could be rephrased.
  • the Russian Tsar – do we know which one?
  • widely regarded as are weasel words and should be avoided.
  • most significant; most famous - should be avoided as peacock terms.
  • current politics - should be avoided.
  • many should be avoided as vague.
Like many of his works, it was published anonymously—this aspect of his career is interesting to me, but it's vague. Many or most of his works? When was it possible to publish under his name? Why did he publish anonymously? When was he revealed to be the author of the works published anonymously? Amitchell125 (talk) 06:26, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Amitchell125, I agree this is very interesting; I will add a bit more on this. Unfortunately, no source I see really discusses when the works became attributed after his death (at least that I had found). I think it might have been the case of plausible deniability, as in - everyone knew he was the author during his life even, but as long as he didn't say so himself, everyone respected his "anonymity", wink-wink style. That, for now, is my OR, however. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC) PS. Done, new paragraph split and expanded at the end of the 'works'. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:48, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amend divided among social life, attendance at university lectures, and being tutored in subjects such as music to 'divided between attendance at university lectures, being tutored, and his social life.’
  • He soon mastered the French language, in which he became as fluent as in his native Polish. – ‘He became fluent in French.’.
  • At the beginning of 1830 – a specific month is preferable.
  • This relationship provided new experiences is too vague.
  • Krasiński's literary techniques – these needs to be explained fully in the article.
  • Krasiński described this in his diary and wrote of the trip in a 5 September 1830 letter to his father – is excessively detailed (why does the article note that this trip is written about, but nothing else in his life?).
Done, and thank you again for your efforts!
"At the beginning of 1830" - the source used doesn't provide any data more precise, I am afraid. I spent few minutes looking for more info, but I couldn't find the data they first met, it probably could be narrowed down a bit with substantial effort, but I doubt it's worth the trouble (main problem being that most sources are simply not digitized and thus not really available for me without going to a Polish library which I am simply not able to do, physically, at this moment).
"This relationship provided new experiences" - good point, everything in life can be argued to provide one with new experiences, removed.
"Krasiński's literary techniques" - the source doesn't go into the details, I reworded a bit for clarity.
"why does the article note that this trip is written about, but nothing else in his life " - it's simply a way to add a date to this particular event
I don't think it works mentioning the diary of the letter here, as it puts undue emphasis on this particular trip. Is it not more notable for a literary figure simply to say that he maintained a diary of his travels? Amitchell125 (talk) 06:11, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Amitchell125, How about this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zygmunt_Krasi%C5%84ski&type=revision&diff=1035023601&oldid=1035021676&diffmode=source ? His letters are really significant, we of course can't mention all of them, but they've been subject to books and monographs, I even saw one article dedicated solely to the correspondence between him and his after (and others, dedicated to collections of his letters to other particular individuals). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:26, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's an improvement. Amitchell125 (talk) 06:21, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
However, I disagree that most significant; most famous should always be avoided, when attributed and uncontroversial, they are useful. If you have a way to reward this, be my guest, but I think it is important to tell the reader those are his most significant works in a given period (or in the entirety of his career). Please note those are not my opinions, I am quoting RS here (Sudolski, Zbigniew, in his PSB entry). We could attribute them but I believe this is only done for controversial statements, and neither of those are such.
Understood, I'm happy with retaining most significant, but "what is likely his most famous work" sounds as if some experts might not agre with the statement. What is wrong with simply saying "his most famous work"? Amitchell125 (talk) 06:17, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While I haven't seen anyone directly saying Undivine... isn't his most famous work (and many do say it is), there are some who tend to say his best work are his letters (although arguably they are not as famous). Hence the qualifier, if I understand the "letter faction" argument properly. Again, I didn't see anyone clearly trying to compare letters to that drama and rank them, so it is a bit subjective. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:23, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what was wrong with "current politics", I changed it to "the current political situation". Or would contemporary be better than current? Or "then-current"? Not that anyone is likely to be confused and assume he was talking about Trump or whatever... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:35, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure? I think "the current political situation" sounds better amended to 'the political situation'
Sure, I am fine with that. Cutting 'current' now. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:49, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1.3 Later life[edit]

  • Text should not be sandwiched between two adjacent images, and left-aligned images should not be placed at the start of subsections.
The images are in much better shape, but (a minor point) how about putting Krasiński as a boy on the right and Krasiński in 1850 on the left, so that faces point inwards? Amitchell125 (talk) 06:40, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • He was a count (Ref 3), did he inherit his title after his father's death?
    • That's a good question, and one that tends to be often difficult to answer, due to the difficult relationship Polish nobility had with such titles before the partitions of Poland and after. His father received the title from the Kingdom of Prussia, which takes us to the question of - was his title count or graf? What, if any, the title should be given to his son, and is that title inheritable? Frankly, I don't know, and none of the sources I read touch upon this. He is rarely referred to as count (Polish: hrabia) in his biographies or academic sources, but some do indeed do so (while, as I said, most works don't mention he was a count at all or do so just once while introducing him, at an extreme spectrum, I found a PhD thesis where the author insists on using Count pretty much every single time in front of ZK's name, in the form of Count Zygmunt (hrabia Zygmunt), resulting in few hundred "hits" for "count" (hrabia) in this work alone... but I'd stress that the author's style is rather unique and an outlier). As you note, he would presumably inherit the title after his father's death, but that would last only about a year, and he himself was quite ill at that time already; I am guessing he was referred to as "count" even before his father's death due to some noble etiquette or such, but this is just my speculation. Since none of the sources discuss his relationship to the title in any significant detail, I think we should just leave it on a side as well, and follow what the sources (reference works) such as PSB or Internetowa encyklopedia PWN [1] do - mention this in the lead and move on. I'd love to add a note to the text about whether his title as a Count is correct or not, but unless we find RS discussing this, which I failed, I don't know what else we can do. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:07, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your detailed and interesting reply, I think you are right about discussing his title too much. Perhaps a link to the article Hrabia from the Polish Wikipedia would not be too off topic. Amitchell125 (talk) 06:58, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In theory, this is interwikied to count, which is linked already. Oh.... wait.. there is Hrabia but it is very weak, in the current form I believe this should be merged back to count (or redirected). I'll start a discussion at Talk:Hrabia. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:58, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2 Works[edit]

  • Link medieval chivalry to chivalry.
    • I think it's already done?
Link moved up, so now sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:08, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link antisemitic; polemical (Polemic).
  • A couple of paragraphs are too short and need to be combined with others.
  • Who was Marina Mniszech? Who is Stephen Bronner, and Agata Adamiecka-Sitek? These people should be introduced ('the humanist Joe Bloggs').
  • Improve the prose by reducing the number of times a paragraph starts with Krasiński('s).
  • many; very gifted - should be avoided as vague.
  • I would unlink western Europe, as the article it links to has little to do with the concept as understood in Krasiński’s time.
  • the disastrous Polish November 1830 Uprising - the uprising was not seen in this way by everyone.
  • the cowardly aristocracy – are you referring to the aristocracy in the play – it’s not clear that you are at present.
  • Why are fame and happiness Romantic myths?
Following your comment below, the text misleading, I would amend and Romantic myths of perfect love, fame, and happiness to something like 'and what he perceived as the Romantic myths of perfect love, fame, and happiness'. Amitchell125 (talk) 06:31, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Amitchell125, Could you clarify how it is misleading? I am not sure if adding the "what he perceived" here isn't a bit weaseling or editorializing, or at least, unnecessary? I checked the source, and it doesn't qualify this, it states directly (translating from Polish) that "Krasiński judged the romantic cult of the poet and poetry, and he was debunking romantic myths of love, fame, and idyllic happiness". Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:53, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that too, but it read strangely, as imo these things aren't myths at all. But I'm happy to let it stay as it is if you are. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:36, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • canon." should read ‘canon”.’.
  • Unlink independence (common word).
  • Refs 14 and 9 need to be reversed, as multiple footnotes are listed in order.
This one (and others) done for you. AM
  • more mature work – works produced when he was older, or works of a more mature nature?
  • Hegel, Schelling, Cieszkowski, and Trentowski – full names needed here.
  • "undoubtedly a masterpiece not only of Polish but... of world literature" The quotation needs a direct citation. Ditto "treatises in the philosophy of history".
  • no place within - ‘no place in’.
Mostly addressed.
"Why are fame and happiness Romantic myths?" I am unsure, but this is the claim made by the RS cited.
"* canon." should read ‘canon”.’." - sorry, I don't understand what you mean here. Also for "Refs 14 and 9 need to be reversed, as multiple footnotes are listed in order. ".
Done for you—they are technical points (the punctuation in the quote needed to be amended slightly, and it is expected the refs are listed in order, e.g. [1][2][3] not [1][3][2]). Amitchell125 (talk) 06:47, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The citation issue now looks sorted, if you directly quote the words said or written by someone, a citation is needed for that quote. Amitchell125 (talk) 06:50, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Amitchell125, Thank you for taking care of those! Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
3 Gallery

5 References[edit]

  • Refs 2 and 8 appear to be identical.
  • For Ref 16, I would consider including this url (optional).
  • Reading The History of Polish Literature (p. 243 onwards), it seems as if the article lacks some of the biographical details included in the book.
  • There should be more details of the nature and importance of Przedświt, rather as with The Undivine Comedy.
    • I hope I fixed all of the above. Not sure which details from the cited work are missing - I certainly think there is scope for much expansion, as usual when we are trying to summarize, in one article, someone who's life has been subject to several monographs and dozens of specialized articles. I have, on my to-do list, writing articles about both Przedświt and Psalms, and presumably, we could add a sentence or two about each here. But they seem to be of less importance than his letters, on which I have just added several sentences. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:05, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. AM

On hold[edit]

I've added a few final comments above, and have put the article on hold for a week until 21 July to allow time for the issues raised to be addressed. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 08:47, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amitchell125, I am copyediting the article now, it may take me a few more days (also note I have done a small expansion based on a source that otherwise would be just removed from the lead). I have also removed some dupe links. I will however respectfully disagree with MOS:OL regarding some links (ex. Warsaw; while I'd concede everyone knows Paris, I live in Korea, and many folks here do not know what is the capital of Poland, and arguably even the name of such country can be useful if linked). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:25, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As the reviewer, I'm sticking the principles behind MOS:OL, but the MOS makes it clear that only major examples of countries and locations should not be linked. A loophole! As the article is a very Polish one, I would agree with you that all Polish locations (including Poland) should have a link. Amitchell125 (talk) 06:41, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus, until today it didn't look as if the review was receiving much attention. I could deal with the quick ones myself, but unless the comments look close to all being sorted by the end of today, I'm afraid the article will have to be failed. Amitchell125 (talk) 09:21, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Amitchell125 I appreciate your efforts, but I am not aware that GA reviews have to be addressed within a specific time frame. I may not be dealing with this very speedily, but I believe a few days for a reply back and forth are perfectly normal on Wikipedia; I have certainly done many GAs where I had to wait several days for a reviewer to get back to me. If you cannot wait a few hours or days for me to catch up with your comments, I'd recommend you ask for another GA reviewer to replace you (this is not a criticism of your review, which I find very helpful, just a note that it may sometimes take me few days to reply to your comments, due to various reasons). In the meantime, I plan on going through the rest of your comments in the near future. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:08, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus Thanks for your recent work on the review, if you need more time I'll hold until 28 July, just ping me back to let me know what you want to do. Amitchell125 (talk) 06:07, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Amitchell125 Thank you. I think I just finished my current pass; in all honesty I am worried that despite all the expansion the article may still not be fully comprehensive. There is just so much literature about him, and I can't claim to have read most of it (I read several biographies of him, but more remain...). Granted, this is a GA stage, not a FA. In the past I GAed articles about even bigger figures, such as Mickiewicz and Słowacki, but I wonder if my standards have not been rising too much, as I am also not very happy with those other articles, either. Each time I think about them (or this one), I feel like they are too short and in need of expansion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:24, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus, I would say that the article is reasonably comprehensive, and certainly on a par with biographical articles about him in English. Anyone seriously interested in him would find the article a very good source of information. To improve what you have written I would re-read the excellent "Zygmunt Krasinski 1812-1859: A Biographical Sketch" in the Polish Review (1959), which contains details worth adding to your article.
If you have books about Krasiński in English or Polish not already mentioned in the article, I think they would be worth including in a Further reading section. I found Tarnowski's biography in 2 volumes here and here, and, although a century old and in Polish, I would list them. A search at JSTOR here comes up with some valuable-looking articles which could also be listed, with a view perhaps of using them if the article went on to FA. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 07:57, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great list, I've tweaked the sources, feel free to revert me, my changes are not required for GA. Amitchell125 (talk) 12:20, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Passing the artricle[edit]

Thanks for your patience and hard work on the article, it looks in great shape now. I'll do a quick check through before passing it, but I don't anticipate any problems will arise. Incidentally, I've put up Stanisław Egbert Koźmian for GAN, feel free to take a look! Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 14:41, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zygmunt_Krasiński/GA1&oldid=1035245568"