Talk:Grigory Potemkin/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer:  Chzz  ► 14:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Progress notes

 * Links valid (checklinks)
 * Quickfail check;
 * 1) Has reliable sources Symbol confirmed.svg
 * 2) WP:NPOV
 * 3) No cleanup banners/excess tags Symbol confirmed.svg
 * 4) No recent edit wars Symbol confirmed.svg
 * 5) Not a current event Symbol confirmed.svg

Concerns
Before you look at other things, please review the edits made by today - I think they reviewed it for WikiProject Russia/History of Russia task force, and xe made some edits.

---

Please mark if fixed, or explain why it doesn't need fixing;


 * Disambiguation links; ✅
 * White Eagle
 * plague
 * Joseph II


 * If possible, please add alt text for images (including the infobox image). This is not a GA requirement, but it is a nice thing, and easy enough
 * Add cite tag to the film.com ref? (just for consistency)❌
 * known almost universally in English as Potemkin or Potyomkin - a) "Potyomkin" is not mentioned elsewhere (and the lede summarizes the rest), but b) probably that part - the "Potyomkin" - could be left out of the lede anyway, and put into the body-text. The 'names' stuff is a bit wordy, for the lede. If he's mostly known as "Potemkin" in English, that'll do; I don't think the other variant is needed in lede ✅, kind of - I made it less wordy, and hence a less offensive addition.
 * (October 11 - no closing bracket ✅
 * [O.S. September 30] 1739[nb 1] - is all this really necessary in the lede? can it be shifted, all this detail, into body - to keep the lede "cleaner"? Same for October 16 [O.S. October 5] 1791 - how about if there was just one [nb] thing, on the date, and the alternative-format dates were in body? ie, lede would become just ...October 11 1739 in Chizhovo, Russian Empire – October 16 1791,[nb 1] - and, actually, maybe re-order that to move the "in Chizhovo, Russian Empire " part outside the span of date - that'd be clearer. ❌
 * commander in Russia's war with Turkey of 1768 to 1774 - I think, possibly, it is clearer to say commander in the Russo-Turkish War of 1768–1774? ✅
 * Catherine's lover, favorite and possibly her husband and consort - "consort" means spouse, so this is tautalogical (ie "husband and spouse" == "husband and husband") - remove one or the other ✅
 * Gavrila Derzhavin (and the other one) is mentioned in lede but not in the body ✅
 * "Let the thunder of victory sound!." needs quotes, I think, not italics? (please check) ✅
 * Nikolayev (Mykolayiv) - do we need the alt name? I think a piped link would be fine ✅
 * associated with the "Potemkin village" - should that be plural, ie associated with "Potemkin villages"? ❌
 * based on a largely fictional tale about a practice of constructing building façades to mimic proper villages better, based on the largely fictional tale about the practice of constructing building façades to mimic real villages (I think. Or you can otherwise improve the sentence) ✅ attempted rewrite
 * known for his love to women should be love of women... ✅
 * many magnificent buildings can you think of another word, other than "magnificent"? It's just that, coupled with "many", it all sounds a bit POVvy, if you know what I mean.✅ I went with "historically significant", which I feel is uncontroversial here
 * Potemkin's name was given to the Battleship Potemkin can you rephrase to avoid the repetition? ✅ a little bit, might need more
 * (skipped to 'legacy' here, and spotted...) link on "greatest film of all time" seems unnecessary?
 * Section name "Catherine II's lover" would that perhaps be better as "Lover of Catherine II"? ✅ Favorite of Catherine II
 * (back up to bio) quoted in Soloveytchik's Potemkin, p. 40. - can that be referenced (footnote) to the book, with details of the book? ❌ Already in bibliography. Is a footnote really justified? I'm tempted to suggest not, but it's not a biggie.
 * Grigory became the centre of attention, his father's only son among six children and heir to the village. - grammar allows for potential misreading as "Grigory [was] his father's only son / among six children and heir to the village" ie he was amongst six kids and an heir - try to rephrase to fix ✅
 * I think "gymnasium school" would be better as "gymnasium school" to make it clearer the wikilink is about these schools - because it currently looks like it'd be a link to info on gyms in general (and thus I'd have not bothered looking at it) ✅
 * placed him in the Horse Guards, an elite regiment. maybe better placed him in the elite Horse Guards regiment. ? ✅
 * one of the first students to enroll at the University proper - not quite clear on why we're mentioning 'University proper' - maybe you can elaborate / clarify? Footnote if necessary e.g. nb -> Another student had enrolled in XXX which was not an official part of the University -or whatever the reason is ✅ See new text for explanation of what I meant here
 * equivalent to that of the poorer gentry maybe remove 'the' ? ❌ I prefer the "the" for keeping the sense I intend. Open to complete rewording, naturally.
 * Potemkin's horse then (appeared to) refuse to leave her side for several minutes before he finally returned to the ranks - "he" is a little bit ambiguous, because it is unusual to use "he" for a horse. How about, before returning to the ranks (and losing the "finally" because it doesn't really add anything)? ✅ sort of, a fudge. May need revising.
 * and her influence got him promoted - can this be improved, for grammar? ✅
 * promoted him again to Kammerjunker - does that really need cap K? ❌ It's a German noun left untranslated or absorbed into English. Dubious, I guess.
 * Confidence shattered, he withdrew from court - needs to begin "His confidence shattered," I think ✅
 * Though Orlov was replaced as her favourite, it was not Potemkin who benefited but another Horse-Guardsman, one Alexander Vassilchikov. clumsy sentence; try to refactor ✅

Arbritrary break at Catherine II's lover

 * rebel army thirty thousand strong -> 30,000 WP:MOSNUM ❌ Deliberately vauge, pretty sure that's covered under MOS.
 * His "uncouth" behavior are these Scare quotes necessary? {{done} No.
 * The frequent epistles the pair sent wikilink or wikt for 'epistle'? ✅ Somebody changed that from plain old "letter". I've changed it back so as to not confuse readers.
 * he was appointed: Governor I don't think the colon is necessary ✅
 * Whether Catherine and Potemkin married is only "almost certain" maybe remove 'only', and then remove *In any case, from the next sentence ✅ reworded
 * 1775, 1784 and 1791 have all been suggested as possible nuptial dates rephrase to avoid starting sentence with a digit ("The years 1775..." or something) ✅ implicitly in above
 * Also re. above 2 sentences - please add an explicit ref to the end of them; I assume they're covered by ref 34, but that isn't entirely clear and they're quite bold claims ✅ Well, added to the second sentence.
 * On January 1, 1775 - in other cases (e.g. DoB) you've used the format "1 January" - it needs to be consistent throughout ✅
 * An Anglophile - I don't think needs a capital A ✅
 * Kingdom of Georgia accepted Russian protection a few days later; the Kingdoms of Persia and Armenia initially looked - are there appropriate wiki-links for K of P. and Armenia? (I realise 'persia' redir to 'iran' was wiki-linked at the start of the para; but maybe there is some article/section explaining what the Kingdom of Persia was? ✅ had a go at it.
 * with fifty or more clerks -> 50 ❌
 * I'm not sure "Builder" is an appropriate section heading...he was more..."Founder of cities?" or something ✅ reverted to city builder. Sure it was that originally - might get complaints.
 * Akhtiar, annexed with the Crimea: it became Sevastopol. -> Akhtiar, annexed with the Crimea, which later became Sevastopol. ? maybe? ✅
 * grandest failure - a bit of an oxymoron? maybe just 'biggest failure' or something ✅
 * Potemkin's most successful city please add a ref at end of the sentence (it's a bold claim) ✅
 * diverted from Australia the wikilink to 'transport' doesn't make sense ✅
 * Certainly, Potemkin had arranged for Catherine to see the best he had to offer (naturally organising numerous exotic excursions) I don't like the POV - 'certainly' and 'naturally' and 'numerous' - rephrase? ❌
 * General Alexander Suvorov won an important victory at Kinburn in early October; further attack by Ottoman forces was now impossible before spring. - are those two things linked? If so, put ...which meant... or something. If not, split to 2 sentences ✅
 * General comment: check numbers as words, per MOS, throughout the document. WP:MOSNUM. They might be acceptable; needs checking ❌
 * national anthem, Let the thunder of victory sound!. quotes/italics? (as earlier) ✅ earlier
 * Potemkin was indubitably vain and a great lover of jewelry I suggest removing links of 'vain' and 'jewelry' (common terms) and also suggest remove "indubitably" for POV / not adding to the meaning ✅
 * (a taste he was only hit-and-miss in paying for), bad grammar. Rephrase. ✅
 * He only agreed to be painted twice suggest beING, to avoid the idea he was covered in paint twice ✅ reworded
 * his Anglophilia capital A not needed? ✅
 * described the French revolutionaries as "a pack of madmen") quote needs a reference ✅
 * sentence beginning Criticisms include "laziness has quotes, needs a ref at the end ✅
 * Not a military genius, he was "seriously able". is not a complete sentence ✅ Adjusted
 * "worthless and dangerous character". quote, needs a ref ✅
 * As a result, the name of the giant... maybe remove "As a result, " - not really needed ✅

Arb break 2

 * Needs PERSONDATA Template:Persondata
 * Book references - please specify the language if not English ✅
 * For book by "Łojek, Jerzy" please change to ISBN13 for consistency ✅
 * Infobox Wife Catherine II of Russia (possible) - I don't like (possible) - I'd rather see a footnote ❌ Needs to be stressed immediately. Might there be a third way?
 * Infobox Born 	11 October 1739(1739-10-11) (N.S.) - add the link to NB1 ✅

Comments
I've fixed a number of NPOV issues in the article, and I think it passes by this criterion in the present state. The issues mostly included the statement of fictional character of the Potemkin Village story, and the usage of dubious claims by Polish underground opposition historian Jerzy Łojek, contradicting both Montefiore and Russian sources. Grey Hood  Talk  17:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Conclusions
1. Well-written:
 * (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct
 * After the changes noted above, and other work on the grammar, I think it generally reads well now. Scope for future improvement to prose, but points are clear, spelling and grammar checked.
 * (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.
 * Checked and edited for MOS; good clear lede, logical layout, POV queries have been addressed.

2. Factually accurate and verifiable:
 * (a) it provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout;
 * Refs all check out; citations include sufficient details and are consistent.


 * (b) at minimum, it provides in-line citations from reliable sources 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
 * Well referenced with RS. Balanced and neutral, multiple sources as much as possible (although accepting there are few good sources; some older works are now directly challenged in Montefiore).

(c) it contains no original research.
 * Does not contain OR; book refs accepted in good faith

3. Broad in its coverage:


 * (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;
 * Life and achievements are treated with reasonable balance; does not overly concentrate on any areas. Seems to have comprehensive outline of of lifespan, and appropriate coverage of death/legacy.


 * (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
 * Good level of detail

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
 * Several edits during the GA process have corrected problems with non-neutral phrasing; now appears to present facts in appropriate tone.

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
 * Check; no edit-warring

6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:
 * (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content
 * No fair-use images used; all images have appropriate licencing


 * (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
 * All in sensible places and appropriate captions



This article has passed the GA review process, and I will promote it to GA status  Chzz  ► 23:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)