Talk:Joseph Potaski

Untitled

This article is historically important to the history of both Tasmania and Australia. I have spent many hours making this page and would appreciate feedback and help on establishing this article. Rather then the crude deletion that has been proposed by the cynical, arrogant and pessimistic wanka that nominated this article for deletion. As mentioned before i would greatly appreciate any help and advice, and also more time in establishing this historically important article. I would also propose that this person would actually read the article and suggest some helpful tips. Joseph Potaski was a influential person in the early colony of Van Diemans land, and his character also reflects the attitude of many other ex convicts of his time. Potaski is immortalised in both Hobart's pioneer park and the local museum. His decendents have also published two books on him as have many historians. Potaski represents the begining of the polish community in Australia. It would be morally wrong if this wanka was to succeed with the deletion of this article. Thanks.

Find some more sources to establish his notability (such as from the museum and park) and the article should be fine. So far though, notability doesn't seem obvious. And in future try to remember Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Anoldtreeok (talk) 08:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

You've got some more references, for now I'll remove the deletion template, but have put two others in its place. Anoldtreeok (talk) 09:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. i really appreciate your help, i was also wondering if you could help me present the references in a suitable manner. I must also apologise for my language, as it has offended you. However i must say that i wasn't being derogatory nor was my language repeating or egregious personal attacks. As i only just found out you were the one that nominated this article for deletion. I must also say that it was not necessary for you to nominate it for deletion, as it was only created last night. I would've much appreciated a constructive comment. I am however very grateful for your contribution and your subtraction of the deletion. And appreciate your help in making this article better. Thanks again:) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.116.189 (talk) 10:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Though I would recommend next time before creating an article possibly putting more references in at first to show its notability. I put it up for deletion as soon as I did because even after reading through it, it struck me as being non-notable and made only so that the name could be added to the hobart page. You found some more references and do seem to be improving it so I removed the notice.

For inline citations, use the ''<ref> </ref>'' tags. Put your source within the tags, and put it where in the article you choose. Underneath the references section put ''{{Reflist}}'', otherwise it will not work, and you will get an error similar to the one previously in the infobox. Hope that helps. Anoldtreeok (talk) 11:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Still has problems

Most of the text from this article appears to copied from the first "reference" [1]. Now, that is either plagiarism, a copyright violation or a conflict of interest on behalf of the author. BTW the deletion tag was entirely appropriate and unless some pretty substantial changes are made to the article soon, I'll put it back. I would refer contributors to wp:plagiarism, wp:copyvio, wp:v, wp:note and wp:rs. As this appears to be an author's first article, an idea might be to take the article out of mainspace and put it in their userspace and build the article there, seeking assistance from others at WP:AWNB or WP:WPBIO. I would also remind respondents to remain civil and no personal attacks while this is sorted out. Thanks. Bleakcomb (talk) 03:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Improvement

I also believe this article is historically significant to both Tasmania's and Australia's heritage, I will work with the people involved to help improve this piece, over the coming weeks. I must however applaud the effort made by the people involved in creating this article, as i am a decendant of Joseph Potaski, and i was involved in writing the Potaski family history. During which i learnt how this family reflected the attitudes of colonial Tasmania, and the hardships and difficulties faced by the convict families. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian3280 (talk • contribs) 04:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Grammar issues

I've added grammar to the multiple issues template. Here's a sentence that appears early on in the article:

His family in the gravestone on his burial place in St. David’s churchyard in central Hobart at the head of Salamanca Place suggest he was born in 1774 whereas other, perhaps stronger, evidence from the English records suggests it is 1762, perhaps 1764.

Sentences like these need to be reworded. It's too long, lacks punctuation at points, and though semantically you can understand it, it is grammatically confusing. I'm not an expert on the subject so don't want to edit the sentences and have them lose their meaning, so I have added the grammar tag. Anoldtreeok (talk) 22:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions

In case they are considered off topic for the deletion discussion, I'm posting the suggestions I made here:

1. Establish what exactly it is that makes him notable, and why it makes him notable. The article itself has to establish the subject's notability. Currently, the article relies on him being the first jewish/polish person to arrive in Australia. OK, what else? Is this solely what makes him notable, or did he do something which adds to his notability? Even if he is very notable, if the article itself does not establish notability, it's not going to be of much use. For example, if Ned Kelly's page simply read "Ned Kelly was a Bushranger", no notability would be established. Obviously, Ned Kelly is a highly notable person deserving a wikipedia article. But if that is all the information given, if I read an article like that having never heard of Ned Kelly, I would ask myself "OK, why is he notable? There were a lot of bushrangers". And that's what this article is to me. It states what he is, but doesn't explain why that makes him notable. Obviously, there is more information, but by the end of reading, I can't help but wonder what was especially notable about Joseph Potaski. So far, it reads like the kind of story someone in my family would tell me, which wouldn't be of much interest beyond that small group.

2. Be a bit more succinct. The article, especially the Potaski's transportation section brings up a bit too much information about the people he is with, which is unnecessary and innapropriate for an article about Potaski. For example, here is a sample of text from this section: Under the command of Lieutenant Colonel David Collins, the "Calcutta" left Portsmouth, and arrived at Port Phillip Bay on the 9 October 1803.[1] Collins was charged with establishing a new settlement, at present day Sorrento. However, Collins found the area to be unsuitable for settlement, and departed on 20 January 1804, for Hobart. It was at this time that renowned convict, William Buckley escaped the party, and lived amongst the aboriginals of the Port Phillip District. This text isn't relevant to Potaski outside of establishing who the people he is with are. If the article was larger, it would be easier to get away with, but because of the small size, these bits of text take up a fair amount of space. It also makes it appear as if he may be famous by association, as if somehow knowing/being in some way related to these other people makes him notable.

In short, focus on Potaski, and not too much on the people around him, outside of his family of course (such as in the legacy section.

3. Just a quick thought, you reference a plaque commemorating him in Hobart's Pioneer Park. Perhaps you could get an image of that to liven up the article? I just think it would show that it exists.

4. Lastly, even though it's not relevant to this discussion, I'll briefly explain citing references inline in its simplest form. At the end of anything you would like to source, put <ref> </ref> tags. Between these tags, enter the source. Under a references heading, add the code, {{Reflist}}, which is already there in the article, and you will have inline citations.

Also, a question: Why does he have an officeholder infobox? I can't see anything that says he held office?

Anyway, those are my suggestions for the article. Anoldtreeok (talk) 01:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions anoldtreek, i'll try to fix it soon. I must also appolgise, when making the box for Joseph Potaski, i reffered to my great grandfather's box, labour premier TJ Ryan. And must have accidently copyed it. I'll fix it now. (143.238.0.177 (talk) 09:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC))

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Joseph Potaski. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130410045413/http://amcservices.org.au/component/docman/doc_download/14-polonia-in-australia to http://www.amcservices.org.au/component/docman/doc_download/14-polonia-in-australia

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:52, 30 November 2017 (UTC)