Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kraków/archive2


 * 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 not promoted 14:14, 17 September 2007.

Kraków
previous FAC

New improvements include: a much deeper copyedit with extended list of quality references complemented by inline citations, especially scholarly print sources and university/conference publications for the History, Economy, Government and Geography sections. The lead was expanded as an overview, summarizing most important points of the article. More informative captions were added to pictures. TOC was reduced in size due to greatly improved sections like Etymology, Economics, Transport, Geography and climate, Sports and the Administrative districts for which I've written two dozen new "daughter" articles (eight of them featured as DYK's). Since the last nomination all sections, especially the ones mentioned above, have been expanded upon according to reliable sources and balanced out in proportion to their prominence whenever necessary. Sections Government and Education were again, rewritten from scratch in a comprehensive manner. Images in all sections have been exchanged for quality ones based on new photo galleries in Wikimedia. The templates listed were also improved. The entire topic has been thoroughly covered in accordance with the featured article criteria not to mention numerous constructive comments provided by reviewers. --Poeticbent talk  16:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC) Weak oppose Neutral : although it looks nice and is almost ready for FA, I'm not very sure about some things: 1. is the list of airlines serving the Kraków airport so important in the main article? 2. I think list of Sejm members from Kraków constituency belongs to some sub-article. 3. I'm not also very sure if various budget details (except for general ones) aren't better for detailed article. MarkBA t/c/@ 15:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Object . The article has been significantly improved, and I believe in terms of content coverage it is comprehensive. But inline citations are still lacking. I count at least 15 paras w/out a single citation, some sections near the end are completly w/out citations. I will see what I can do about adding some citations, but I don't think I can find all that are needed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I will gladly help with all that. Please indicate where you find additional citations would be helpful, and I will start with the search right away. --Poeticbent talk  17:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I will work on the history section; please add at least one ref for each paragraph in the following sections that has no citations.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ All sections and all paragraphs regardless of size are now supported with inline citations (almost 30 new items between the two of us). Additional sources can be found in most "daughter" articles. Thank you, Piotrus. --Poeticbent talk  23:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, great job. Changed to support.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 03:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Not so great :-(( First of all see my comments on citations on the Talk:Kraków page. Secondly, it seems that the editors were bent on finding a different source as a reference for each, no matter how trivial, point. For example, the reference to the history of  Jagiellonian Uni. was pointing to about half a sentence on a York (Canada) University page on student exchange. There is no shortage of primary sources (i.e. not regurgitated webpages), some of them are used in the article (e.g.   A Concise History of Poland  or Encyklopedia Krakowa) - why they are not used more extensively, possibly with page nnn added to facilitate searching? --Jotel 14:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I suppose, most (if not all) concerns from the above have been already taken care of with your active participation, Jotel. Let me extend my personal thank you for your many happy returns. --Poeticbent talk  00:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ These are excellent comments. Thanks. The whole paragraph on airport has been revamped accordingly. Section Economy (including city budget) has just been rewritten with new features and only general information about detail. The list of Sejm members from Section Government has been turned into a sub-article and replaced with relevant data. --Poeticbent talk  18:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * MOS breach – refs should immediately follow word, phrase or punctuation. Please also check and add missing retrieval dates as necessary to web sources. I can't work out for what is good comparing Kraków's population with voivodeship or nation-wide ones. I'd like to see some more detail on purely Kraków statistics and, if possible, some historical population. MarkBA t/c/@ 19:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I'd suggest some re-arranging, particularly in Symbols and twin cities section (so ref list won't be blocked) or in Culture section. MarkBA t/c/@ 20:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ MOS breach has been fixed and section Symbols re-aranged. I removed regional and national statistics from section Demographics and replaced them with local ones going back 30 years, including new relevant data about population density in various districts. --Poeticbent talk  00:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Good job so far, but there is still work to do. Some refs (e.g. 19 or 23) do not have retrieval dates or other information (and be sure to link full dates as well). The word "south" isn't capitalised (Culture). I'm not sure if that UNESCO box is still needed as it is in both old town and Kraków articles. However, I feel that nominator made an effort to fix issues, and as such I'm changing my vote to (conditional) neutral, pending fixes. MarkBA t/c/@ 12:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Now I feel that this article is becoming more and more ready to the FA status, but still I see few things that do not fit well in my opinion; what strikes to me is this passage from Parks – "Planty is the best known park in Kraków" (wording/no reference) and lead, third paragraph – "It is a major centre of...Famous landmarks include..." reads like from a tourist guide (though section dedicated to architecture wouldn't be bad). MarkBA t/c/@ 19:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. There is an ongoing revert-war on the page. Some folks prefer to remove any mention of the fact that, unlike Warsaw or Dresden, Krakow was spared the ravages of WWII owing to the well-calculated manoeuvre of Ivan Konev. Furthermore, this vital fact from the city's history is replaced with commonplace rant about "Stalinist atrocities". I don't think the article should be promoted as long as this dispute is not resolved. --Ghirla-трёп- 13:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The above fact is mentioned with wording that sounds neutral at present. The particulars of that fortunate though still debated episode in city's history are being worked on by editors in a "daughter" article called History of Krakow. The final take, I believe, will probably remain neutral, with only general historical highlights for the section as per FA criteria. --Poeticbent  talk  15:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe that a stable compromise has been reached; as Poeticbent noted, controversial details were split off to subarticle and them main article should be stable.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Neutral - This is generally an excellent article but I have a couple of reservations. First, Poeticbent, something you can and should do on your own is to bring the history up to date. I know there's a daughter article, and that's where this topic should be developed in full, but the city's history did not stop in the Bierut era. Probably 3-4 sentences will be enough. Second, and this involves Molobo, Piotrus, Irpen and all the usual suspects: do find a compromise version because the article should be relatively stable. (As an aside, Ghirlandajo: the mass rape, pillage and murder were real. No reason to dismiss mention of them as a "commonplace rant about 'Stalinist atrocities'", complete with scare quotes, though if your concern was purely an NPOV one I can respect that.) Third, maybe something on crime? How safe is the city, and do we have statistics on major offences? Finally, maybe the religious demographics. A table would be nice showing their evolution, but at least try to give present-day numbers (I assume most everyone's Catholic, but the word "Catholic" doesn't even appear in the article. It should). These are minor concerns, though, and I'm ready to support when they're addressed. Biruitorul 03:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * A new paragraph on crime and public safety with official statistics and local sources has been added to section Government. Meanwhile, a new paragraph on religion, with some eye-opening statistics on catechism, was added to section Demographics. --Poeticbent</b> talk  00:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose Religion: not done properly. I do not care whether this subject is, or isn't, mentioned here. but if it is, the information should be pertinent to Cracow.  Some "eye-opening statistics on catechism" are possibly interesting, but certainly not related to the town in question. The fact that the source is published in Cracow is neither here not there.  --Jotel 10:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Jotel, please stop plastering multiple “oppose” votes in addition to the one you already put in earlier. It is dishonest to try to create an impression that there are even more “oppose” votes listed in this nomination. Going back to the question at hand, Kraków is the second largest city in Poland and as such, reflects all national trends. It would be impossible to separate the people of Kraków from the entire nation in terms of their religious affiliations and/or demographic profiles (as oppose to citing a  glossary of local church buildings and other dead meat). I was encouraged to add a new info about religion in Kraków, and that’s what I did, using national statistics and not the local ones, because local ones don’t exist and won’t exist until Kraków turns into a city-state like Vatican. There’s no religion in Kraków aside from the religion in Poland, whether in schools, at peoples’ homes, or in churches, especially in teaching of catechism, and other country-wide programs. Readers who wish to learn about the city, will learn about the country of Poland as well, which isn’t difficult to understand. Now, for those reviewers who’d like to read my write-up on religion, please go to the history of the article (here) because Jotel deleted what I wrote. Repeatedly... just like the first time around. --<b style="font-family:Papyrus; color:darkblue;">Poeticbent</b>  talk  22:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Very close, but not quite yet. I agree with Biruitorul that a section on crime might be a good addition, and I definitely support adding a section about religious demographics and any related important historical/cultural information. Such a section is (IMHO) a good addition to any city or country article, but especially here since Poland is one of the more religious countries in Europe (at least from what I can tell.) The earlier disputed bit about the Red Army at the end of WW2 seems to be in pretty good shape right now, not too biased towards either side. It could stand a bit more detail though. All in all a very good article and just a hair's breadth away from getting my support vote. K. Lásztocska 04:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ and done. I found all your comments quite inspiring. Paragraph on crime including local statistics can be found in section Government. I expanded on section Demographics by adding a whole new paragraph (+1,635 char.) devoted to religion with some interesting statistics and census reports, supported by several new references and sources. --<b style="font-family:Papyrus; color:darkblue;">Poeticbent</b> talk  00:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Not yet. First of all, it requires a proofread for content:
 * Did Napoleon really found the Duchy of Warsaw in 1815, as the article now says? On which of the Hundred Days did he do so? (Note: I doubt this is the date of the fall of the Duchy either; the Allies were at Leipzig by 1813.)
 * The sentence in which this stands should be recast. Final prepositions are not forbidden, as the superstitious think; but it is clumsy.
 * Is the Biennial Graphics Festival really an annual event?
 * There are probably others.
 * Second, we need to have the naming debate. The Polish Wikipedia uses pl:Nowy Jork and pl:Londyn; we really should Use English and say Cracow; it's embarassing not to. (This may require a decision to overrule the present guideline to accomplish its purpose; this is separate from other naming debates, in which it has been ignored altogether.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I rather strongly disagree that "Cracow" is the proper name to use for this article. "Krakow" (usually without the diacritical, but whatever) is how I've always seen it in modern English-language publications and thus apparently is (modern) common parlance in English. K. Lásztocska 02:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I would appreciate the opinion of an anglophone on this point; this English Wikipedia is, after all, intended for them. Webster's Third, btw, shows Cracow pronounced as [krā'kō]; it would be nice to see this included. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ Thank you Pmanderson for your insightful comments. The wrong date, the final preposition and the Biennial have been fixed. Btw, the Duchy of Warsaw remained in existence for a short period following Napoleon's ruinous retreat from Moscow and was partitioned again at the Congress of Vienna in 1 9  (8)15. --<b style="font-family:Papyrus; color:darkblue;">Poeticbent</b>  talk  00:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Addendum: There's nothing as reassuring in Wikipedia as the participation of even more contributors in our ongoing discussions. I'd like to encourage you Pmanderson to allow for this article to be acknowledged for what it is worth and brought to the attention of outside viewers in the process of refining our WP:NCGN guidelines. --<b style="font-family:Papyrus; color:darkblue;">Poeticbent</b> talk  18:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Done is premature; I recommended a full proof-read. If Casliber or the WP:LC can say they've done one, that much can be struck. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I've massaged the text a bit and supported below after my excellent tweaks (hehehe) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry I forgot to mention also that the full proof-read was already performed once by our American colegue, Art LaPella from Template talk:Did you know, as of 22:18, 5 September 2007. My special regards to our friend Casliber. As a side note, watching the most recent edits to Infobox, I would appreciate if you, Pmanderson, consulted with our community, since that is the whole point? I do not understand why the American Heritage Dictionary is being promoted ahead of countless sources we've been discussing for months? --<b style="font-family:Papyrus; color:darkblue;">Poeticbent</b> talk  21:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Then let him say so.
 * I did not consult the American Heritage Dictionary, but the Pronouncing Gazeteer to Webster's Third; the OED doesn't have one. If there is a British equivalent, do add it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, here I am and here is my edit. I have little experience with Featured Article procedure, but I have often rewritten foreign-sounding articles to sound as if an American had written them, along with other routine proofreading, and I have plaques and a trophy from winning spelling bees (but that's mostly automated these days anyway). Is that what you want to know? As for how Americans spell Krakow, I live near Seattle, U.S., which is almost as big as Krakow, and the Polish Wikipedia article is of course pl:Seattle. If Poles had another way to spell Seattle, how many other Poles would remember that spelling? How many Poles even know that Seattle is on an arm of the Pacific Ocean? My globe says Cracow and the map in my hall says Kraków (both say Warsaw not Warszawa). I asked my wife and she knew Krakow was in Poland (which is unusual - she once worked for Airborne Express) but she had no idea how to spell it. I finally coaxed her into trying and she said "Krackow". Due to immigration, Americans are familiar with Polish surnames using our own alphabet. They are long and full of seemingly random letters, especially z, w and c. Even I missed Brzezinski in a spelling bee. My point is, Americans are likely to look up the spelling of anything Polish, rather than try to remember it. Art LaPella 05:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks; your edit looks very useful. But it is for style; not for content, which is what I requested. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Congress of Vienna in 1915 ???--Jotel 09:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ Oops, sorry. I meant 1815 of course. --<b style="font-family:Papyrus; color:darkblue;">Poeticbent</b> talk  18:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Fixes needed - hi. looks good. I've begun massaging the prose a bit to improve flow as it is clunky in places and needs to be more polished before it can get across the FA finish line (well, in my opinion anyway). I felt it was too time-consuming to list all examples - happy for me to continue? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * See here :-) --Jotel 12:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hahaha - ok. I'm doing a bit more but it's late here (Australia) and I need to sleep. Some of the prose really needs some more copyediting but it is improving. The end is in sight :) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ I’d like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the tremendous amount of work you put into Kraków recently. Thanks. --<b style="font-family:Papyrus; color:darkblue;">Poeticbent</b> talk  16:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Support—But can you audit the spelling out of large numbers? I see "11", but "five thousand"; then "30,000". No period at end of captions that are not complete sentences (MOS). Tony 01:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ Manual of Style, Manual of Style. Thanks, Tony. --<b style="font-family:Papyrus; color:darkblue;">Poeticbent</b> talk  16:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Support— prose vastly improved :) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose on the grounds that, for an FA, the references are in a mess. Too often the quoted source does not support the article text and/or the source is effectively an open blog &c.  I've tried to weed out some cases of this type, but my patience, enthusiasm and expertise are running out. --Jotel 14:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Needless to say I would like to help as much as I can. I would also like to work on parts of the article mentioned in earlier comments, that’s why knowing whether your vote is final would greatly improve my schedule and perhaps save a whole lot of time. You’ve been removing references supporting critical claims with expressed opposition from other editors like myself and Piotrus, who requested Verifiability and who already supported this nomination. Also, you’ve been deleting the work of others without replacing it with anything of substance. I’m in a quandary here. Would you be interested in adding quality references when appropriate? Let us move just one step at a time and help each other if possible. --<b style="font-family:Papyrus; color:darkblue;">Poeticbent</b>  talk  17:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If ref. 1 you mention contains any reference to the E&Y report, it must be well hidden somewhere on the site, anyway I could not find it. I'll be happy to see a clear link to the said report; as it was, the page the removed ref. was pointing to is a +- generic estate agents' blurb.  Ref 2 was deleted because the document talked either about the voivodeship (or possibly the whole country), there was nothing there specific to Cracow. Yes, I'm guilty  of deleting the work of others without replacing it with anything of substance as charged, but (a) that the WP's way  (b) everybody is free to criticise the work of others without being able to do a better job oneself (a badly tailored suit comes to mind....). --Jotel 17:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * My answer Part 2: My vote is as final as is any WP article....I mean the text (references included) could change any time. If it does, I'll reconsider.  As I said earlier, I'll try to find some better references but do not promise (a) to correct every occurrence of what I find unsatisfactory (b) any time-scale.  To be blunt, I would not bother with all my editorial contributions if it weren't an FA candidate.  The article, as it stands now, is of good quality, well above the average, and many miles better than what I ever wrote (or hope  to write) for WP.  But if an editor puts 'his/her' article forward as a shining example to the Wikipedians, it's (s)he who should put the most effort to satisfy reviewers. --Jotel 18:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * On the whole, the links Jotel removed in this compound diff don't seem very good; one of them is indeed a chat room in Polish, others are the city web site. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The article is great, but at first glance the leading picture in the infobox is pretty bland. It looks like it could be any one of dozens of European cities seen from a hill. Any chance of improvement there? Deuar 20:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ Below are but a few interesting pictures from the gallery in Commons, with the new and the previously featured photograph. --<b style="font-family:Papyrus; color:darkblue;">Poeticbent</b> talk  23:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It could also use some more copy-editing. A more comprehensive list of possible improvements is on the to-do list below. &mdash; Kpalion(talk) 21:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This article is really improving, but it still fails on the following criteria:
 * 1b. Comprehensiveness. Information about the city's industry, pollution, and large parts of history is missing.
 * 1c. Factual accuracy. There major (and easy to correct) errors in the history section.

Kpalion, what do you mean by the balloon statements, like: “There are still minor problems with grammar and style”? Please list the examples. I suggest you plunge into editing and claim at least some of the credit for your advanced skills of observation rather than spend time colouring boxes. Please look at how User:Jotel has been deleting virtually every paragraph I put into Kraków during both nominations; first about universities, than about demographics, religion, transportation, even women ratio, not a single new paragraph came through during last candidature. Do you really think you’re actually helping to bring this article closer to being featured? --<b style="font-family:Papyrus; color:darkblue;">Poeticbent</b> talk  07:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.