Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tadeusz Kościuszko/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 02:41, 25 May 2014 [1].


Tadeusz Kościuszko[edit]

Nominator(s): Gwillhickers (talk) 17:17, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... Tadeusz Kościuszko a Polish revolutionary hero who also fought in the American Revolution. It was nominated for FA before and had wide support, but because a couple of minor issues came up, and the discussions dragged on, the nomination didn't make it. All issues have long since been resolved, imo. Gwillhickers (talk) 17:17, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Article is well written and well sourced and has excellent scope and many interesting details. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a belated note that there's no need for nominators to offer explicit support for their own FACs -- that you believe it's FA-worthy is a given, and we don't want this confused with other editors' more independent evaluations. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:34, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. All issues appear to have been resolved. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 01:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. As a co-author, I believe it was ready months ago. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Ditto. Nihil novi (talk) 09:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by MONGO[edit]

  • Cleaned up more than a dozen overlinks. I tend to ignore the first instance of a link after the introduction, but eliminate them after that. There may be a few examples of unnecessary links but nothing major popped out.
Thanks Mongo. If the topic is an important one I'll usually link it more than once if it occurs in a separate section, but usually not in two consecutive sections. I also try to stay away from links in the lede unless the topic is a key topic to the subject of the article. In any case, discretion is the key. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Going through editing history since the close of the last FAC effort on October 12, 2013...and will see if issues have been adjusted. Edit history since seems to indicate that one issue, that of stability, is no longer an issue. Will have further to add in next few days.--MONGO 15:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Currently engaged in last review and some minor copyediting which I hope to finish late today..my edits aren't in stone and may need further adjustments.--MONGO 15:40, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support...I've made a number of recent edits most of which are just tweaks and minor MOS related adjustments. An important article that covers all the bases and worthy of being rated as Featured Article. Congrats to all those instrumental in bringing this complex article to this level.--MONGO 20:24, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Herb_Roch_III.svg: what is the source and copyright status of the original work?
  • Not required, but would be helpful to translate non-English descriptions like that of File:Музей-усадьба_Т._Косцюшки....JPG
  • File:Tadeusz_Kośiuszko_during_battle_of_Racławice.PNG is not the same as shown in the source - were edits made to the image? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. It means I set the white/grey/black levels more appropriately. The initial upload had a blue tinge. (Hohum @) 11:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I just noticed the original file at the source link was different to the first upload. I've uploaded that one, and then provided a colour balanced version which doesn't have the blurred sky (and top of his hat), and less blowout of highlights. It does have more muted colours than we had previously though. (Hohum @) 11:33, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For those who didn't know: The new version is a marked improvement. I've uploaded hundreds of images and often times I've edited a given image beforehand. i.e. enlarge, enhance color, adjust tone, enhance clarity if needed, etc. If the original file is eligible for use here at WP, making graphic improvements isn't anything that will change that. Nice work Hohum. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:09, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Minor changes and tweaks[edit]

I've been making some minor adjustments in a few of the citations, moving source info from text/markup to the Bibliography, adding some ref links, etc. The citations themselves remain the same. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support This is clearly a well-written article and I think it should be promoted to FA status. 23 editor (talk) 22:50, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

  • brigadier general Arthur St. Clair capitalize his rank. Suggest a link to all ranks on first use.
  • transfer to battle duty with the Southern Army battle duty? How about combat? Is there a link to Southern Army and is that it's formal name? Or should that be rephrased to forces in the southern theater or somesuch?
  • Was the Commonwealth's military structured something like that of the later Austro-Hungarian Army with separate components for Poland and Lithuania? Because otherwise, He asked for a transfer to the Lithuanian army makes no sense to me. And army should be capitalized there as a proper noun.
    • Not sure how apt te comparison to AHA is, but there were separate armies, under separate commanders, see hetmans of Poland and Lithuania. Pl wiki has separate entries on pl:Armia koronna and which I may translate at some point; see also Army of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. I am not seeing any good sources for a detailed explanation (GBooks search for "armia koronna" "armia litewska" does confirm the terms are often used to indicate two related but separate entities but I am not seeing any sources for defining them outside OR at least not right without searching further). I hope this answers the question but ping me if you'd like to discuss this further. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not really relevant for this article, but I did a double-take when I read the mention of the Lithuanian Army. Somehow the reader needs to be given the information that there were two armies so he's not taken by surprise like I was.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:41, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • When the Prince had become Commander-in-Chief of the entire Polish (Crown) Army on May 3, 1792, Kościuszko had been given command of a division near Kiev Delete "had" both times that it's used.
  • concentrated army group delete "group"
  • How could the caption be correct for the Philadelphia house be correct if he didn't arrive in the US until 1797?
  • The reference to his crippled condition was a complete surprise. Provide some context for this.
  • Is the image of the US stamp free for use? We tried to use on the article on the USS Monitor and it was disallowed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:00, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed caption date.
  • Kościuszko's "crippled condition" is explained in the preceding section. (Add : Changed wording: ...still in his wounded condition ...)
  • Stamps are in the public domain. The stamp image used in the USS Monitor article was a post 1978 issue and had "critical commentary" issues per NFCC policy. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed 'battle duty' to 'combat duty', retaining 'duty' to reflect that time was often spent in readiness, not just in actual combat.
  • Can't find anything on Southern Army other than a disambiguation link. Not sure if this was a formal title for a section of the Continental Army.
  • Dropped 'group' from 'concentrated army group'.
  • Reword and also removed two occurrences of 'had' from sentence. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • While checking to see the changes made, I noticed that there are a lot of hyphens used instead of endashes for page ranges.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Sturmvogel 66: -- Have added endash to page ranges where needed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:30, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, looks good.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:24, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

  • Gwillhickers, I think this would be your first FA nomination? If so I'd like a reviewer to conduct a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing. If no-one above would like to undertake that in the next couple of days we'll list a request at the top of WT:FAC.
  • Ditto source review for formatting and reliability (which is generally required for every FAC).
  • Finally, I noticed a few duplicate links. You can highlight and review these using this script. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:42, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Though I am not the primary author of this article, and though it hasn't changed much since your last visit/review, I'd welcome a spot check.
  • Am not familiar with this script's usage/installation. If you know of any dup links, feel free to delete as necessary.
    -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate links[edit]

  • There's a link for Thomas Jefferson in the lede and one in the Later life section. Since this involves the lede and a section that is a good length away I believe the 2nd link is allowed, and convenient for the readers also. Will be willing to zap this one if you feel it's necessary. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 14:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Corps of Cadets is linked in a caption and again in the Early life section, which I believe is allowed. However, since the link in the caption is in the same section as the other link I'll remove the former link. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:27, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Duplicate links removed, lede notwithstanding

-- Gwillhickers (talk)

A few spotchecks[edit]

  • WP: Kościuszko's first task was building fortifications at Fort Billingsport in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to protect the banks of the Delaware River against a possible British crossing. (note 29) Source: He said George Washington commissioned the Polish military engineer Thaddeus Kosciuszko to design a fortification that could stop British ships from reaching Philadelphia. Kosciuszko, whose abilities were admired by Washington and Thomas Jefferson, also helped design defenses at Philadelphia, Saratoga and West Point. "Fort Billingsport was Kosciuszko's first job," said Quint, who lives in West Deptford. "His real genius was in the location. "It's at a perfect place. It was at the narrowest point of the river with a commanding view on a high piece of land about 30 to 40 feet above the Delaware." The fort was built by New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia and South Carolina troops and inspected by Washington on Aug. 1, 1777. The Americans trained cannon on the river, had a small navy of armed vessels, and embedded chevaux-de-frise - long iron-tipped poles - in the Delaware to pierce the bottoms of enemy vessels. "They blockaded the river and slowed down the British ships," Quint said. "It took [the British] about a month to get past the fort. They sent a force of 1,500 troops by land, and the fort's defenders evacuated in a hurry."
When I read and re-read this, it appears to me that the purpose of the Billingsport fortifications was not not to protect against a British crossing of the river, but against a British advance up the river. Unless the editors have another source that says different, I would say this needs tweaking.
  • WP: At some point in 1777, Kościuszko composed a polonaise and scored it for the harpsichord. Named for him, and with lyrics by Rajnold Suchodolski, it later became popular with Polish patriots during the November 1830 Uprising. (note 35) Source: The "Kosciuszko" polonaise was composed by Tadeusz Kosciuszko, a Polish general, the leader of the Kosciuszko Insurrection that failed to defend Poland from being partitioned, and the hero of American war of Independence. Kosciuszko composed this piece while in the U.S. around 1777 and scored it for harpsichord; the original version was published in England in "Two Polonases and A Waltz, Bristol 1797). During the November Uprising in 1830/31, the Polonaise, with added words by Rajnold Suchodolski (who died in the uprising), became popular among Polish patriots.
Looks fine, though I would change "At some point in" to "At some point around" or just "around" (even though that takes the text closer to the original) since we don't want to suggest the source was being more accurate than was the case.
  • WP: Jefferson was concerned that the U.S. and France were verging on the brink of war after the XYZ Affair and asked him to act as an informal envoy. Kościuszko later wrote, "Jefferson considered that I would be the most effective intermediary in bringing an accord with France, so I accepted the mission even if without any official authorization." (note 97) Source: Jefferson, fearing that the tensions resulting from the XYZ Affair might lead to war, treated Kosciuszko as an informal envoy from the United States to France. Kosciuszko later wrote: "Jefferson considered that I would be the most effective intermediary in bringing an accord with France, so I accepted the mission even if without any official authorization."
Paraphrasing sufficient, but I am concerned that there is a substantive difference between being "asked" and being "treated as" something. Also, citation should include page number (p. 92).
  • WP: One of the first examples of a historical novel,Thaddeus of Warsaw was written in his honor by the Scottish author Jane Porter; it proved very popular, particularly in the United States, and went through over eighty editions in the 19th century. (note 122)
Source (one of two cites) confirms that there were over eighty editions in the 19th century; other source I'm assuming covers the claim of it being one of the first examples of a historical novel.
  • An editor needs to go through the footnotes and render consistency in treatment of the dates (compare, eg. 29, 35, and 125 for three different approaches). hamiltonstone (talk) 12:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP: With some 5,300 men, he defeated 25,000 Russians led by General Michail Kachovski.[71] Despite the tactical victory, Kościuszko had to retreat from Dubienka, as the Russians crossed the nearby Austrian border and began flanking his positions. (note 71)
Source supports this and there is no close paraphrasing problem (the text is too long to quote here).
Question : If the source supports this and there's no paraphrasing problem then what needs to be attended to? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:06, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, i should have explained. This is a list of spotchecks for the delegates to see. As such, i included ones where the check came back clear - so no, nothing needs doing. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:29, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP: Prince Józef Poniatowski, who happened to be the King's nephew, recognized Kościuszko's superior experience and made him his second-in-command (note 61)
Source supports this and there is no close paraphrasing problem, though it may be worth noting that Poniatowski didn't just make him second in command - Poniatowski also then went away, leaving K in charge (the source says).hamiltonstone (talk) 13:01, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are still some problems in the notes / bibliography. There are cases where there is a source that looks to be of a type that should be being cited Harvard-style, then listed in the bibliography. I think this applies to footnotes 33, 35, 72, 97, 110, 122. There are still dates not in consistent format (notes 117, 121, 122, 124) hamiltonstone (talk) 13:06, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A fairly random approach has been taken to the final period in Harvard-type refs. Notes in which it is missing include 1, 14, 26, 27, 49, 78 etc etc etc
  • Inconsistent approach to page range format in note 87 - better check the others too.hamiltonstone (talk) 13:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's more: take a consistent approach to the order of first name and last name in those cites that you are not going to convert to Harvard footnotes (compare 109 and 121, for example). hamiltonstone (talk) 13:13, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • And there appears to be inconsistency with how the number of pages in an item is expressed in the "further reading" section. Also, the article only tells us the total number of pages in some books and not others. Why? hamiltonstone (talk) 13:14, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : Often times the 'number of pages' are not provided as they usually are in google book listings. Several of the books listed in Further reading appear in other sites that don't provide this info. If anyone is in possession of the sources in question in hard text form perhaps they can provide the page numbers. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:58, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You know that I see no point to having # of pages in a book, but MOS only demands consistency one way or another. If you cannot locate page count for some then you'll need either delete them or delete page count from all books.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Page numbers are used in Google, Amazon, Archive.org, etc, and give one an idea of how extensive a publication is. I find that useful when deciding which sources to look into first when writing or when I want to check on something. Page numbers are included here in the overwhelming majority of books when available, so there is consistency on that note. Not all books have ISBN numbers listed, but we don't need to strip ISBN numbers from all the books that do for the sake of consistency, which in this case is a superficial inconsistency, imo. If there is a consensus to remove page numbers from all the book listings I'll be happy to do so. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:30, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Footnote 90 - the Harvard ref uses an ampersand for two authors, yet in note 17 no ampersand appears. Any reason? Or is this some mysterious glitch of a script?
  • Footnote 128: Barnes and Noble are not the authors! hamiltonstone (talk) 13:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hamiltonstone, thanks for your review.
  • Changed date format in refs to consistent format.
  • Changed wording from "...crossing the Delaware" to more definitive wording altogether, mentioning Philadelphia.
  • Re: 1777: I would leave wording to say "at some point in 1777 Kościuszko composed a polonaise". Saying 'sometime around 1777' also implies that he may have composed it in late 1776 or early 1779. Yes?
  • Changed wording from "...asked him to act as an informal envoy."   to   "...regarded him as an informal envoy."'  which ties in better with Kosciuszko's following quote:  "Jefferson considered  that I would be the most effective intermediary..." (emphasis added) -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:25, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  
  • Added author's name to 'Peasant Prince'
  • Changed page range to consistent format to refs that needed it.
  • Changed ref fields in 'cite book' and 'cite web' templates to consistent usage, removing '|author=' and replacing with '|first=' and '|last='; Added '|authorlink=' where appropriate; Also used '|editor-first=' and '|editor-last=' accordingly.
  • Mention Kosciuszko being left in command when Poniatowski was absent.
  • Add ampersand to ref 17 to denote two separate authors. Using a comma suggests the two names may be a last name and first name arrangement.
  • Added the last 'period' to refs that needed it. Also added space between 'p.' and page number where needed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Other improvements:
  • Fixed typo in 'cite journal' template
  • Moved source (Anderton, 2002) to bibliography and added '|ref=' link to corresponding reference.
  • Moved source (Filsk) to bibliography and added '|ref=' link to corresponding reference.
  • Move source (Fort Billingsport, news article) to bibliography;   Add '|ref=' field to template;   Add ref link to reference.
  • Move source (Afflerbach) to bibliography;   Add '|ref=' field;   Replace '|author1=' and '|author2=' with '|first1=' / '|last1='  and   '|first2=' / '| last2=' fields;   Added number of pages. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Citation and bibliography work
Have made a number of additional improvements with citations, moving a fair number of sources from text to bibliography, with a detailed account here and in edit history to aid further spot checks.
  • Moved 'cite web' source (Alexander, 1968 article) to 'Other sources' in Bibliography, add ref= field; Add ref link to corresponding citation
  • Remove citation/source (Budka) with no year, publisher or page number -- item (Kościuszko's secret departure w/Jefferson's help) already cited with Gardner, 1943
  • Moved cite web listing (Thomas Jefferson Foundation: Kosciuszko) to 'Other sources' in Bibliography; Add 'ref=' field to template; Add ref link to corresponding citation
  • Moved source (Cizauskas, 1986) to bibliography, add ref link to citation. This source was listed in full in text, yet existed in bibliography with no linking to the citation.
  • Moved source (Otrębski, 1994) to bibliography, add 'ref=' field; Add ref link to citation;
  • Moved cite web source (Thaddeus Kosciuszko National Memorial) to 'Other sources' in Bibliography
  • Converted source listing (Poland's national identity essay) to 'cite web'; Move to bibliography; Add ref link to citation
  • Moved source (Looser, 2010) from text to bibliography; Add 'ref=' field to template; Add ref link
  • Moved source (Kosciuszko Gallery at buffalo.edu) from text to 'Other sources' in Bibliography; Added 'date=' field w/date
  • Move source (City of Detroit - web site photo) from text to 'Other sources' in Bibliography
  • Add historical note about Kosciuszko statue in Poland, w/citation. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:17, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • (note to delegate, in case it isn't obvious: I did a spotcheck and source review, which delegate had sought at the FA talk page; am not planning on reading the whole article - hence no expression of an overall view of support/oppose etc) hamiltonstone (talk) 15:11, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A few copyediting comments, not a complete review. (Note that I'm just copying text without links.) This is my imperfect understanding of what reviewers are looking for at FAC. - Dank (push to talk)

  • Kościuszko is the subject of the first 11 sentences of the article. Some variation in sentence structure would improve readability.
  • "He was a close friend and admirer of Thomas Jefferson, with whom he shared": (Handling several things at once here:) Thomas Jefferson was his close friend and shared his
  • "On learning in France about the outbreak of the American Revolutionary War, in 1776 Kościuszko moved to North America, where he took part in the fighting as a colonel in the Continental Army.": Some redundancy here. You just told us that he was in France, and if he was fighting, we can assume that he heard about the war, so: "In 1776 Kościuszko moved to North America, where he took part in the American Revolutionary War as a colonel in the Continental Army."
  • "An accomplished military architect, he also built state-of-the-art fortifications": You may have meant "also" as "in addition to the above", but many readers will take it as "in addition to being a military architect". Also, I'm not sure exactly what a "military architect" does ... military architecture redirects to military engineering, and you might want to add that link if that's what you're saying.
  • "he also built": According to our article, he "oversaw the construction", which is less likely to be misinterpreted.
  • "Brigadier General": lowercase
  • "Two years after the Polish–Russian War of 1792 ... in March 1794": Personally, I'd delete "in March 1794".
  • I got down to the end of the lead. - Dank (push to talk) 19:58, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is the Kosciuszko biography so it seems appropriate that he would be the subject in the first 'eleven' sentences, in the lede especially.
      • Can you find another FA that has the same subject in the first 11 sentences? Does anyone know of one? I don't believe I've seen that before, in several thousand FAs I've worked on. - Dank (push to talk)
  • Can you single out a sentence in the lede that doesn't belong? Is this some sort of policy? How does someone add a sentence to the lede that doesn't involve the subject of the biography somehow?? Could you link to a FA biography where a sentence in the lede doesn't relate to the person in the biography? Shouldn't we be judging the prose -- not a given number of sentences that relate to the subject? This is getting a little fuzzy. A good number of reviewers have reviewed and/or approved this article -- never have I heard this one. Again, unless the wording is the pitts, far afield from the subject, factually in error, etc, I would advise we stick to concrete issues that revolve around policy. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:29, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was just told by another reviewer that Brigadier General should be capitalized.
      • Do you mean where they said "brigadier general Arthur St. Clair" should be capitalized? Capitalize when it's in front of the noun (and just in a few other cases). This is the advice given by every place I know to look, including our Manual of Style.
Have fixed this one. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:29, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • When it comes to preferences for wording we can easily come up with several opinions for the same passage so I would advise not to pick at things unless they are recklessly worded and/or factually in error. Otherwise this review might go on for yet another two months. I can see a couple of things you pointed out that might do well. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, I'll have a look after you've made changes. Does anyone else see any problem I pointed out above that generally isn't considered a problem at FAC? - Dank (push to talk) 22:00, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just noting that not much was changed. I'll leave this for someone else, I'm busy. - Dank (push to talk) 10:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks like this is still stuck. I can offer this compromise: I made a couple of minimal changes to the lead; you can forget my other suggestions if you like. If someone will read through one more time and fix the obvious prose problems ("a French military academies", "the reduced Poland and Lithuania states"), then I'll volunteer to go through the rest of the article, making or suggesting minimal changes that, in my imperfect understanding of FAC standards, will allow me to support. Otherwise, I'll oppose. - Dank (push to talk) 19:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anyone? - Dank (push to talk) 12:16, 16 May 2014 (UTC) (Piotr just thanked me for this edit, so there's at least some interest, I'll be patient.) - Dank (push to talk) 12:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, the specific problems I pointed out have been fixed, and I won't oppose. Other problems remain, such as "his family were" (not okay in AmEng). Best of luck. - Dank (push to talk) 12:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • G'day, I've made a few tweaks to address some of things Dan is talking about; I'm not sure if my changes have fixed everything, but I am wary of changing too much as US English isn't what I'm used to and I didn't want to change the voice of the narrative too much. Anyway, I hope it helps in some regard; please feel free to revert if my changes are not to your liking. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:37, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Final phase?[edit]

After a lot of tweaks, improvements and a few minor fixes over the last week or so I believe the article is good to go. If there are any final issues anyone can find, regarding policy, factuality, redundancy, etc I'm sure the contributing editors here will be more than willing to oblige and make any improvements or fixes. Aside from all the tweaks and bibliography/citation work, the article looks stable. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:20, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd hope so, but it's FAC. I am not holding my breath... the nom will be failed because it was under review too long or on some other pointless technicality. I hope I am wrong, though. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Singora

1. You have a cite error in the refs.

Fixed typo -- GW

2. In the bibliography, what are "other sources"? How do they differ from sources that aren't "other sources"? Perhaps you should categorize sources as, for example, books, journals / articles, websites, etc.

Other sources are web site sources. -- GW

3. Regardless of the above, the "other sources" are not alphabetically ordered.

Will fix. Fixed. -- GW

4. Here's an error "following Gates' disastrous defeat at Camden on August 16, 1780 the Continental Congress had selected Washington's choice".

By what source are you making such an assertion? -- GW

4. Lots of sentences start with .......... On such and such a date. Many of these sentences could be re-written to break up the monotony and make things more interesting / professional.

We've already addressed differences of opinion when it comes to wording preference. Such sentences exist far apart and don't come off repetitive. Again, unless a passage is clearly written poorly, is factually in error, redundant or somehow violates policy we should leave well enough alone as it's easy to come up with several opinions for the wording of any given sentence. -- GW

5. Shouldn't "further reading" have its own section and not be part of the bibliography?

No. They are sources and as such listing them in a subsection to the bibliography is appropriate. -- GW

6 Some books appear to be missing ISBNs. Example: Gardner, Monica Mary (2009). Kościuszko: a biography. G. Allen & Unwin Singora (talk) 05:26, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This has already been discussed. Many books, usually older publications, don't have ISBN numbers. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:01, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Sturmvogel 66
  • If it's a 2009 edition then it almost certainly has a ISBN. So either fix the edition date or add the ISBN.
  • This has prompted me to look more thoroughly at the bibliographical formatting and there are multiple issues that need to be addressed.
Correct year has been added and there is no ISBN for this dated publication.
Good.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are only some English-language book titles in title case?
Please be specific.
You've got eyes and can identify these objective issues yourself. I'm not going to spend a half-hour or so enumerating them for you, that's the task of you and your co-nom. These aren't vague matters of opinion like most prose issues, but are easily identified if you spend the necessary time going through the bibliography, etc. yourself with a fine toothed-comb. It's tedious, but I don't think that I've ever gotten a clean pass on this sort of stuff on my own FACs. There's always one comma or something that gets overlooked.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but help would be nice. This is a large bibliography made with several different type of templates and several sources written in Polish.
Understood, but I don't really enjoy doing it for my own articles and am disinclined to to do with sources in languages I hardly have a clue in.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • And why do only some have publisher locations?
Not all publications provide locations. If you know of any that do and are not included it would help everyone if you were more specific.
See above. --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • And why are some publishers' names not capitalized?
All publisher names are already capitalized. What are you referring to?
No, not all of them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'Encyclopaedia Britannica Company' now capitalized.
  • I know that you like to add page count for books, but do you really expect me to believe that the 1911 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica only has 914 pages? Or are you referencing p. 914 specifically? If so, why? Exact page refs should be in the references, not the bibliography.
I don't expect you to believe anything, and kindly adapt a more civil tone. Obviously whoever entered this was referring to page 914, as is clearly indicated in 'ref #27' which refers to this source.
You've now removed the page # from the bibliography, which is good, but failed to fix any of the other problems with that entry. And what about this? Под ред, С. Каўн (2006). Вялікае княства літоўскае: гісторыя вывучэння. Мінск : Медисонт. p. 544. Is this a single-page article or a ref to one page in the article? If the former, why isn't page spelled out? If the latter, why is it in the bibliography?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is written in Polish and as far as I can tell it doesn't provide number of pages. I've asked Piotrus for help on the Polish language sources / web sites. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same for Afferbach, although you make no reference to it. So why is it listed?
The correct spelling is Afflerbach, and it is referenced (ref 33).
My mistake. But you are lacking a page count for it, as well as for a few other books.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a couple of more.
  • Fix the italicization in Herbst.
Unless I missed it, I found none.
Really? Then why is the page count italicized? This is the exact sort of thing that I am talking about. You've seen these so often that you aren't actually looking at them any more.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You said "Fix the italicization in Herbst", not the page number in the Herbst listing, and besides, the 'work=' field in the 'cite encyclopedia' template italicizes everything in it which is why it wasn't apparent in the markup. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But why just this one? Your other cites must have the page count in a slightly different place.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sturmvogel, this particular source is a tough cookie. I can't find the online source -- no Google, Amazon, so we can't list the publisher where the number of pages follows. Again, this is a 'cite encyclopedia' template so it's format comes off a bit differently. As such I'm hoping allowances can be made for this one source. Will inquire further with the editor who added and used this source extensively (i.e.see ref# 105). -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:43, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have added missing location (well, I chose one of three possibles from Worldcat, this parameter is junk anyway, particularly regarding usefulness - who cares?), added the more important publisher. See Worldcat for info on this: [2]. If you need help with any other Polish sources, let me know. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:34, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's not important to the academic value of the article, esp in terms of historical content, for sure, but we may as well strive for as much consistency as possible if we're going to shoot for FA. Anyways -- thanks!! -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Consistency is entirely the point. You chose to include pub location for some, for whatever reasons, now follow through with everything else.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the organizing principle between the bibliography and other sources? I see articles listed in both places although the books seem to be mostly in the former.
This will be the second time I've spoken on that. website sources are listed under 'Other sources'.
Maybe not all of them. "100 ВЕЛИКИХ АРИСТОКРАТОВ - Костюшко Тадеуш Андрей Бонавентура – всемирная история" [Kościuszko, Tadeusz Andrzej Bonawentura – 100 Great Aristocrats – World History] (in Belarusian). History.vn.ua. Retrieved November 17, 2012. This looks web-based, rather than a book, but it's the first entry in the bibliography.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to 'Other sources'.
  • Articles in the bibliography should include the page range of the article.
Many are one or two page articles. Do you know of one that needs a page range specification specifically, or are you just trying to help?
  • Why are some dates of access in M-D-Y and others in Y-M-D?
Why didn't you simply say there are some date format inconsistencies rather than suggest they were added this way intentionally, which is sort of ridiculous if you were to stop and think about it.
I have no idea why there are date inconsistencies, although carelessness is the most likely explanation.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then obviously you do have an idea.
  • Please provide the full publication information for both Niemcewicz books. And there's really no reason to author link him twice.
Of course there's "no reason", these are obviously oversights. I also converted the first Niemcewicz listing to 'cite book' format.
That's the exactly the problem; there are too many oversights here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many of these entries I did not write, so checking on locations, number of pages, etc, etc, for all of them is an above average difficult and time consuming job. Things would go more smoothly if you'd lighten up a bit and not ride my case for things you've done yourself here.
  • You also need to standardize where you're putting your page counts. And fix typos when spelling pages.
Number of pages follow publisher's names, when available.
Looks like you've fixed the one example that I spotted earlier.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please be sure that every source in the bibliography and other sources is actually referenced with those that aren't moved to further reading or deleted.
I'll check again.
  • You may well believe that these are nitpicks for the sake of nitpicking, but your bibliography doesn't meet the standards of an undergraduate term paper and that needs to be fixed. I've had whole classes devoted to the proper formatting of the thing as there's a prescribed place for every single comma and period. And woe betide you if you mess it up or add something outside the prescribed formatting like your page counts.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Right... I don't mind someone pointing out what needs to be fixed as I've been doing all along, but your haughty tone sounded like you could use a rest. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bibliography work

This Bibliography is something of a bottomless pit it seems. In an effort to secure as many locations, page numbers, etc as possible I've been looking into other domains for sources, like Amazon, or Open Library, when Google isn't any help. When there is a 'preview' available I'll look inside the first few pages to see if I can get this sort of information there, as I did in a couple of instances. As far as I can tell (I would love to say absolutely that) all the locations that are available have been included. In the Other sources section where on line essays are listed almost all of these are one or two pages in length. I just added number of pages to an NPS essay that was 58 pages in length however. In any case, I think we can say this is the most tweaked Bibliography in all of history, so it seems. I'm hoping that the effort to get these last few tweaks finalized isn't anything that is going to torpedo the nomination. Much thanks to all those who have helped. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps now you're starting to understand why I prefer to limit the sources I use when writing articles. It makes vetting the bibliography for all of these sorts of niggles far easier. Imagine the fun you'll have if you decide to bring Monitor to FAC!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, almost all the sources were added by other editors, and since sources for Kosciuszko are not exactly easy to come by, it took a good number of them to cover his biography well -- however, your point is painfully well taken. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 14:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your Bibliography

In the "other sources" section, you now have this:

  • Colimore, Edward (December 10, 2007). "Fighting to save remains of a fort". Philadelphia Inquirer, page article.
  • —— (December 10, 2007). "Fighting to save remains of a fort". Philadelphia Inquirer. Archived from the original on December 12, 2007.
Pesky authormask. Removed the second. GW

Why is this wrong?

How many of your refs are missing what Mr SturmVogel describes as "terminal periods"? Fix it quickly before he notices!

Fixed. I thought refs with only page and page range needed them. Thanks for checking again. GW

I see no evidence that the works in the "further reading" section (Honeyman, White, Pula, etc) are cited in the article. As such, they need to be moved out of the bibliography and given their own section.

Singora (talk) 04:18, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a consensus to do this I'll go along. Not an issue IMO. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 14:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Conditional SUPPORT from Singora Singora (talk) 19:03, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • 1. This support is given on the basis that Mr Gwillhickers will move the "further reading" section out of the bibliography.
  • 2. None of the works in the "further reading" section are cited in the text and therefore have no place in the bibliography.
Thanks Singora. I looked into a few Feature articles (e.g. Benjamin Harrison, Baseball) and the ones that have Further reading material have it listed in a separate section, so I am now inclined to do the same here. However, I'll wait for any further comment before I decide to make the change. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:26, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest it makes the distinction between cited and uncited sources clearer if you give Further reading its own section, after the Bibliography and before External links. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:30, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agreed and noticed how much confusion this seemed to be causing. I've split it out to level 2. hamiltonstone (talk) 07:39, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 12:46, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up[edit]

After Dan's recent check and Rupert's edits (I did tweak a couple of bits myself as well), plus the great deal of work put in by other reviewers and of course the nominator, I think this mammoth task may have finally reached a conclusion. One thing though, the lead says he was commissioned a major general in 1784 but the main body simply says "general". Since the subsequent text states he was promoted to lieutenant general, I assume the lead is right and the main body needs to reflect that but please check and sort out. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:57, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Rose, I did some checking: Storozynski, 2009, is viewable via google but without page numbers so I'm hoping perhaps Piotrus or an other editor has the hard text to check on this information. In any case in Stotozynski 2009 it says Secretary of War Benjamin Lincoln wrote to Congress recommending that Kosciuszko be promoted to brigadier general, which seems appropriate in terms of climbing the ladder of promotion. i.e.Never heard of anyone becoming a major general without serving as a brigadier general first.
On another page it refers to Kosciuszko as brigadier general when he departed for Europe in 1784.
Several other paages refer to him, perhaps generically, as e.g. "...a battle tested general..." and "the respected General Kosciuszko..." offering no further qualifying designation.
On another page, following, Kosciuszko is referred to as Lieutenant general while serving in Poland, in a different army of course.
As far as I can tell, Storozynski never refers to Kosciuszko as a Major General, ever.
In a timeline put out by the University of Buffalo it says he was promoted by Congress to brigadier general in 1784 and departs for Paris that same year where he soon returns to Poland and is Commissioned as major general in the Polish Army in 1789. To my disappointment the Kosciuszko Uprising article never makes mention of any promotion. In fact that article doesn't ever refer to Kosciuszko as general, but that's a different article, and evidently it needs some work. I went ahead a clarified in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth section that Kosciuszko was made a Major General in 1789, reflecting what the lede states. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:09, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry, I meant major general in 1789 not 1784. Anyway, the discrepancy has been dealt with so I'll be promoting this shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:36, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Tadeusz_Kościuszko/archive2&oldid=1138472574"