Talk:Przemysł II

Edit of 12 June 2006

Here's what I did:

• rm superfluous "See also" section: links contained w/i article
• rm double linking and red links which will never be created
• rm superfluous section header "Biography"
• rm image of Piast coat of arms (what's the point?)
• retooled image format of seals and put them in a gallery beside the sections on marriages and realms
• format of opening line: changing name in bold to "Premislas" and adding alternative names in English, Latin, Polish
• more proper format for "Sources"
• ordered sections in a more logical way to make the information about him and his reign accessible

I would like to see these types of cleanups at other Polish monarchs, most of which are aesthetic messes. Finally, I think this should be moved to a title like Premislas II of Poland or Premislaus II of Poland, but I won't press it. Srnec 20:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree on naming to English. Marrtel 18:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. "Premislas" is a strange translation and used only in several Google Books results. Appleseed (Talk) 21:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

B-class review for WP:Poland

@User:Aldebaran69: I am upgrading the assessment of this article from start to C class. This article is pretty close to B-class (and the following WP:GAN nomination). The problems that need to be fixed:

• prose could be improved. You can ask User:Nihil novi if he has time, and/or filea request with Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyediting (but please note they have a ~1 year backlog)
• there are unreferenced sentences at the end of paragraphs, or entire unreferenced paragraphs. At this point I have not checked if existing references cover preceding sentences when those sentences are not cited.
• references and notes should be split
• section headings should be formatted per WP:HEADINGS
• please explain abbreviation KDW the first time it appears in refs
• image ref should be moved to the image page (ref 172)

--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

High Duke

Kudos to those who have worked on this. It's an excellent article. There are many references, though, to him as a "High Duke." I've studied medieval titles for decades and have never come across this one. I suspect it's a translation of a Polish title but it's not one I've heard. Is it supposed to be a Grand Duke? 155.213.224.59 (talk) 15:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

"Grand Duke" - common Russo-Polish-Lithuanian moniker. HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:56, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Senior Duke is the correct term I think. The system under which they were named was called Seniority. See also History of Poland during the Piast dynasty#Fragmentation of the realm (1138–ca. 1314) and Seniorate ProvinceGerard von Hebel (talk) 20:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Pre-GA review

User:Oliszydlowski, could you tell us why you have not fixed issues I raised at #B-class review for WP:Poland? You should not ask for a Good Article review when an article is still failing B-class criteria. I doubt the reviewer will tell you anything new. --Hanyangprofessor2 (talk) 07:18, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

- I am now in the progress of fixing the article's references and I looked at the points raised on the talk page. I wasn't able to look at the article and forgot about the nomination. My goal was to first nominate the article and then deal with the issues. Sorry for any confusion and best regards. Oliszydlowski (TALK) 18:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

This article will need involvement by someone on behalf of the article to pass the current GA review

This article will need involvement by someone on behalf of the article to pass the current GA review. I'm writing this here (outside of the GA review)because many folks probably have the article on their watchlist but not the transcluded GA review, Overall it is an excellent article which shows an immense amount of good research and work. However, it had an immense amount of "writing in the English language" grammar issues. I was happy to fix the ones that I could (over 100 fixes) but I listed 12 where I could not do that. Most of those were because I could not even tell what the sentence or phrase was intended to say. I really can't pass this excellent article with those 12 significant. I already wrote on the user page of the person who was a major contributor and nominator. And they appear to have no email on their account. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC) GA Reviewer.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Przemysł II/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: North8000 (talk · contribs) 13:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Introduction

Hello, I am starting a review on this article. I chose it because it is the oldest nomination that has not had a review started. It is of a type (large complex article on a topic that is not well known in the English Wikipedia) that can be slow to get reviewed, and I tend to take those. North8000 (talk) 13:35, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Just to get my request in early, is there a person or persons here that would probably handle or respond to any issues that I bring up? North8000 (talk) 13:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

GA criteria final checklist

Well-written

Small English grammar issues that I plan to fix

There are numerous small English grammar issues. I think that it would be faster for me to fix them than note them and I'd be happy to do so. North8000 (talk) 21:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Done through the end of the "Kidnapping of Henryk IV Probus by Bolesław II Rogatka. Battle of Stolec" section. North8000 (talk) 22:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Done through the end of the "Treaty of Kepno..." section. North8000 (talk) 23:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Done through the end of "Congresses of Łęczyca...." section. North8000 (talk) 01:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Done through the end of the article. It still has the issues listed below (which I couldn't fix because I didn't know what they were trying to say). Still has some subtler grammar issues, but, after the below ones are fixed, the remaining ones are not enough to stop GA status. North8000 (talk) 04:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

English grammar / mis-wording issues that North8000 can't fix and so need fixing by others

In the lead, can you clarify "down from Lesser Poland". Is this stepping down from a particular role for Lesser Poland? North8000 (talk) 21:45, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Resolved North8000 (talk) 12:32, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

in the "Cooperation with King...." section, the phrase "They are also known political decisions that were made there" has a grammar problem but I don't know what it is trying to say. Can you fix? North8000 (talk) 23:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Resolved North8000 (talk) 12:34, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

In the second paragraph in the "Treaty of Kepno...." section, "unlikely to Mestwin II, who was accompanied by only one voivode" has a grammar problem but I can't fix it because I don't know what it is trying to say. Could you clarify or fix? North8000 (talk) 23:45, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Resolved. North8000 (talk) 12:36, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

In the "Marriage with Rikissa..." section, "who a year received from Przemysł II the village of Giecz in gratitude for his services" has a grammar problem but I can't fix it because I don't know what it is trying to say. Could you clarify or fix? North8000 (talk) 01:11, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Resolved North8000 (talk) 12:37, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

In the "royal government and death" section, "where confirmed the privileges of the Cistercian monasteries in Oliwa and Żarnowiec" has a grammar problem but I can't fix it because I don't know what it is trying to say. Could you clarify or fix? North8000 (talk) 02:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Resolved North8000 (talk) 00:04, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

In the "royal government and death" section, "though the Kronika wielkopolska failed to bring his work to the time of his contemporaries, and so the years 1295–1296[213] and told the events of Rogoźno" has grammar issues / is unclear. I can't fix it because I don't know what it is trying to say. Could you clarify or fix? North8000 (talk) 02:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Resolved North8000 (talk) 12:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

In the "Seals and coinage" section, the following: "due to the activities of mints certified by sources and the occurrence of witnesses made by the ruler of legal actions – minters,[275] can be almost certain that any coins existed" has grammar issues / is unclear. I can't fix it because I don't know what it is trying to say. Can you clarify / fix it? North8000 (talk) 03:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Resolved North8000 (talk) 12:41, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

In the "Seals and coinage" section, the sentence "In turn, appears on the reverse side facing the right side of the crowned eagle." has grammar issues / is unclear. I can't fix it because I don't know what it is trying to say. Could you clarify or fix?North8000 (talk) 03:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Resolved. North8000 (talk) 12:42, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Near the end of the "Economic policy" section, there were many phrases that I worked on (please check that I didn't change any facts) but there was one remaining: "In 1294 a privilege was granted ranging cottagers on German law in the Old Town in Kalisz" which has grammar issues / is unclear. I can't fix it because I don't know what it is trying to say. Can you fix/ clarify? North8000 (talk) 03:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Resolved North8000 (talk) 12:45, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Other issues

As written, the second half of the first paragraph in the "War with Brandenburg. Expedition to Neumark" section seems to conflict with itself. Says it failed, then talks about him doing victor type actions. Can you clarify? North8000 (talk) 21:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Resolved North8000 (talk) 23:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Passes this criteria North8000 (talk) 00:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Factually accurate and verifiable

Excellent and immense job on this!

The lineage section is a statement of who his ancestors were (or, in some cases, probably were. Could you provide a cite / source for that? North8000 (talk) 04:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Resolved North8000 (talk) 23:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

"KDW" is used a large amount of times in sparse cites, but it's unclear which item in the Bibliography it is referring to, and I don't know what it is. Does it have an author? Is there some way to clarify? North8000 (talk) 14:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

To flesh out and summarize the one open issue , "KDW" is used 66 times as a reference, but it is listed only as "KDW" for each cite, with no explanation of what it is, no listing as such in the bibliography, or no linkage to any listing in the bibliography. So I think that this is a significant but easily fixed issue. North8000 (talk) 13:43, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Passes this criteria. North8000 (talk) 11:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Broad in its coverage

Passes this criteria. North8000 (talk) 04:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each

Passes this criteria. North8000 (talk) 01:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

Passes this criteria. North8000 (talk) 01:22, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Illustrated, if possible, by images

Image status #1 - #4 are public domain. #5 has a suitable license. #6-#8 are public domain. #9 (church) &#10 (map) have a suitable licenses. #11, #12 are public domain. #13 (church) has a suitable license. #14 has a suitable license #15, #16 (seals) are public domain.

Passes this criteria. North8000 (talk) 02:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

This article will need involvement by someone on behalf of the article to pass the current GA review

This article will need involvement by someone on behalf of the article to pass the current GA review. I'm writing this here (outside of the GA review)because many folks probably have the article on their watchlist but not the transcluded GA review, Overall it is an excellent article which shows an immense amount of good research and work. However, it had an immense amount of "writing in the English language" grammar issues. I was happy to fix the ones that I could (over 100 fixes) but I listed 12 where I could not do that. Most of those were because I could not even tell what the sentence or phrase was intended to say. I really can't pass this excellent article with those 12 significant wording problems. I already wrote on the user page of the person who was a major contributor and nominator. And they appear to have no email on their account. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC) GA Reviewer.

@Oliszydlowski: Another attempt. Pinged here, and placed another post on nominator & key editor's talk page. North8000 (talk) 11:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Cool, you fixed most of the; just a few more to go. North8000 (talk) 23:41, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Repeating my earlier post from above, to flesh out and summarize the one open issue , "KDW" is used 66 times as a reference, but it is listed only as "KDW" for each cite, with no explanation of what it is, no listing as such in the bibliography, or no linkage to any listing in the bibliography. So I think that this is a significant but easily fixed issue. North8000 (talk) 12:47, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

ResolvedNorth8000 (talk) 11:07, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Result of Good article review

Congratulations, this article passes as a Wikipedia Good Article. What an immense amount of excellent work was done on this article! And what an immense amount of excellent, sourced information that it contains!

In this case the article's nominator is also a substantial contributor to it. With the large amount of time I spent, including, in addition to the review, fixing a large amount of grammatical issues, with substantial attempts to communicate, multiple followups on open items, extension of the review process to 3 weeks for the issues that I could not fix to get fixed, it was a bit unsettling to not receive any communication back, including on the extended amount of time I was waiting for the fixes on the items which I could not fix. Possibly this may be useful feedback on any future GA reviews.

Nice work! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:19, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Result of Good article review

(This is "duplicated" here for when the review is no longer transcluded)

Congratulations, this article passes as a Wikipedia Good Article. What an immense amount of excellent work was done on this article! And what an immense amount of excellent, sourced information that it contains!

In this case the article's nominator is also a substantial contributor to it. With the large amount of time I spent, including, in addition to the review, fixing a large amount of grammatical issues, with substantial attempts to communicate, multiple followups on open items, extension of the review process to 3 weeks for the issues that I could not fix to get fixed, it was a bit unsettling to not receive any communication back, including on the extended amount of time I was waiting for the fixes on the items which I could not fix. Possibly this may be useful feedback on any future GA reviews.

Nice work! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:27, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Numerous problems

Obviously a lot of work has been put into this article but there are many problems too. In fact, I do not understand how the article passed GA nomination. I have fixed some of the issues but a lot more work is needed. I removed some original research, shortened the epic section titles, and removed some unnecessary fanciful illustrations but the grammar, orthography, and style are still seriously flawed. I suggest seeking help from WP:COPYEDITORS. Surtsicna (talk) 00:30, 26 April 2020 (UTC)