Talk:Stanisław Staszic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Stanisław Staszic 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.
April 11, 2013 Good article nominee Listed

pro-evolution theory[edit]

I marked the following sentence as unclear: Some of his views and theories made him an early supporter of pro-evolution theories. I find this term highly unclear. There's no pro-evolution theory article anywhere. Did the author mean "supporter of evolution before Darwin"? Or perhaps "creator of a theory supporting the theory of evolution"? What are those pro-evolution theories mentioned, any ideas? //Halibutt 12:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Quote from PSB, p.549: "Zafascynowany zmiennością i współzależnością zjawisk w świecie przyrody i cywilizacji ludzkick, należał w Polsce do prekusrów ewolucjonizmu w naukach przyrodniczych i społecznych." This is what I based my sentence on, I agree it is not the best one. How would you rewrite it, based on the source claim? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 18:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

which stock market?[edit]

He also made some successful financial investments, including in the stock market. - which one? I'm guessing the LSE but I could be wrong and this should be clarified.VolunteerMarek 03:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

B-class review[edit]

I have reviewed the article and promoted it to B-class.

The only problem which I saw was some tense-switching in the text. Basically, the narrative would change from using the -ed form of past tense to the "he would ..." form (and some slippage into present tense as well). This can make sense if the purpose is to interrupt a chronological narrative in order to explain relevant later developments but it's important to watch that this isn't over done.

My sense is actually that other than that the article is ready for GA status. One thing that could be considered is a couple more images (and perhaps better organization of these in the article). I checked on commons and what gives me a bit of pause is that almost all the relevant images are of Staszic himself and it's probably not necessary to have half a dozen portraits of the guy, or a half a dozen statues of him. However, it would be nice, for example, to get an image of the cover of one of the editions of his works or something like that. That may be wishful thinking though.

I do think it should be nominated for GA.VolunteerMarek 03:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try to reread this for tense, and nominate it for a GA in a not-so-distant future. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 03:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

"On the Reasons of Jewish Noxiousness"[edit]

O przyczynach szkodliwości Żydów (1818) doesn't appear among his works on the Polish Wikipedia page. If this is among his "best-known" works, such a well-regarded, influential Polish intellectual's position on the Jews would be pertinent to include here. -- Deborahjay (talk) 07:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 02:09, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Piotr, I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:09, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments[edit]

This looks solid and close to ready for promotion. Thanks a lot for your work on it! I'm always awed by your prolific contributions.

Broadly speaking, my main suggestion is to add a bit more context to make the article more accessible to a foreign reader. I realize much of this information is linked in other articles, but it's helpful to add a clarifying phrase or two in the article itself for ease of reading. Specific points are noted below.

I also made some minor copyedits as I went; please have a look to be sure that I didn't inadvertently introduce any errors, and feel free to revert anything you disagree with.

  • I'd suggest defining some of the specialized terms as you go (sejm, Szlachta, magnates, etc.). These could be defined in parentheticals, appositive phrases, explanatory footnotes, etc.
  • I'd also add a brief phrase explaining who Zamoyski is.
  • When discussing SS's proposed govt reforms, it would be helpful to add a sentence or two making it clear what system of government ruled Poland in his day, for context.
  • What is the Kościuszko Uprising--can you add a 5- to 10-word explanation?
  • "After the partitions of Poland, " -- since these took place over 23 years, this is a little vague. Maybe, "After the Third Partition of Poland"? I'd also suggest adding a brief phrase like, "--in which Russia, Prussia, and Austria seized much of the Commonwealth's territory--"
  • Can you clarify in a quick phrase what "Congress Poland" was?


Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well written:
1a. the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct. A bit more historical context would make the text clearer for international readers. Sources are unavailable for copyright spot checks, but happily accepted in good faith.
1b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
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.
2b. all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines.
2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:
6a. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content. File:Stanisław Staszic.PNG and File:Portret Staszica w granatowym fraku.jpg need tags for their US copyright status.
6b. images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment. Pass

Most issues should be fixed (inc. pics). I improved the link from magnates to Magnates of Poland and Lithuania, not sure how to explain it better. Not sure if we have room to discuss the political system of Poland, it was very complex; I added the link to Golden Liberty under the "inefficient governance". Let me know what else I can do. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Theology at the Collège de France[edit]


I think there must be a mistake about this issue : "he continued his theological studies in France at the Collège de France". If you look at this page : Collège de France Teachers since 1530, you will find no teacher for Theology. If Staszic listened conferences at the Collège de France, it was not about Theology ; and if he studied Theology, it was at the University (la Sorbonne).


--Jacques Goliot (talk) 11:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Merci, Jacques, good catch. I checked the source and it is indeed clear that he studied physics and natural history; the theology claim was erroneous. It is now fixed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)