Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Stanislaw Koniecpolski

Stanislaw Koniecpolski
Self-nom. Biography of one of the best military commanders of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. There are, as far as I can tell, no English books about him - majority of the article is based on my translation of Polish sources (referenced). What I'd like to add someday is the map showing the places where he fought, but at present it is beyond my capabilities to do so. Even without a map I believe this article if FAC ready. I'd appreciate your comments. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:56, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC) "Stanisław Koniecpolski, (1590/15941 – 1646) was a notable member of the Polish gentry, a magnate, and holder of many offices in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, including the titles of a palatine and castellan. He was also a famed military commander in Poland." Halibutt 00:00, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Mildly object &mdash; I like this article. However, it is not very readable. The opening paragraph, in fact the first sentence all by itself, is very dense. The reader is confronted with a whole host of Polish terms from the outset. The nomination above actually uses a better description of the man. Also, there are far too many red links in the text. While red links are an encouragement to expand WP, too many of suggests that the article exists in isolation. Some of the red links look like they might be spelling mistakes, and some could be pipe-linked to appropriate articles with a slightly different name. Gareth Hughes 13:18, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The three terms that I think you could be refering to are: szlachcic, starost and hetman. All are linked and in the 11-lines of the lead I think they don't confuse the reader too much, although I would be happy to hear how would you suggest we can improve the ease of understanding of this section without removing those important terms. I agree that there is unfortunately quite a few red links in the main text, but I think all of them deserve their own articles. It is true that history of Eastern Europe is not the best covered subject at Wiki, but I don't think this is a reason to disqualify this article. I'd appreciate if sb could fix the few links that may still need a redirect - I tried to link them all to the best of my knowledge. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:52, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * The opening sentence reads:"Stanisław Koniecpolski, (1590/15941 - 11 March, 1646) was a szlachcic (Polish noble), magnate, starost and Field and Grand Crown Hetman of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth."I feel that the reader is faced with too much meaty information in this sentence, and would suggest:"Stanisław Koniecpolski, (1590/15941 – 11 March, 1646) was a Polish aristocrat (szlachcic and starost) and famed military commander (hetman) of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth."You could even leave out the bits in brackets, as they are defined in the body of the article. I feel that the opening paragraph has to be accessible to the general English reader. It is good to have the correct Polish terminology, but they really don't help when they're bunched together at the beginning of the article. The opening paragraph should give the basic information that is necessary for someone who knows nothing about Koniecpolski or the Rzeczpospolita to know what the article is about, otherwise it reads:"Unpronouncable (who lived maybe then) was an unpronouncable, not the thing you stick to a fridge, no that's a landowner, some word I don't understand, with a really grand title that must require a very shiny uniform of a political entity in Eastern Europe I've never heard about."It might sound cruel, but, if I'm honest, that's how it reads to me. Gareth Hughes 11:28, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I see your point. Is this better: --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:40, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC) "Stanisław Koniecpolski, (1590/15941 – 11 March, 1646) was a Polish nobleman (szlachcic), magnate, official (starost and castellan) and famed military commander (Field and Grand Crown hetman) of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth."
 * I would have to agree Gareth Hughes' proposed rewording is much better, your new proposed one is almost as good. The rest of the lead could also stand to be simplified and made easier for someone that doesn't already know the subject to understand. Overall, the article looks pretty good, aside from some orphan paragraphs (1-2 sentences) and having only two references being pretty minimal. Do you have some other sources available that you could cite? - Taxman 18:50, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Nothing specificly about him in English - I could find nothing on Amazon, nor anything by Google except the stuff in external links. I added one English about that period - Norman Davies has few paragraphs about him in his history of Poland. I could add some more Polish sources of course. Merged the short paragraphs. I'd welcome advice how to further simplify the lead. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:31, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * If that is all there is, then use the Polish sources; more sources is still better. You can still even cite specifc facts as needed to them. Just make sure you have used the Polish source properly and its all good. Obviously it is preferrable to have at least a few sources in English, but if there are none or very few, then so be it. If those websites are reasonable reliable, use them as references and format them properly in the references section too. - Taxman 16:11, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Though I have minor bits left that I see could be fixed, they are not worth holding this one up for. Object for now, though I anticipate supporting. 1) There are way too many redlinks. Are all of those people and things really notable enough for their own article? I would submit that some of them are not. If they are, then fine, you've got your work cut out for you. :) Besides the people of possible notability or not, there are links to things like "terrain advantage" and "Cossack register" that I'm not sure are distinct enough concepts for an article, but I could be wrong so I didn't fix them. 2) A lot of overly technical jargon or Polish terms are not explained at all. Examples are "starostwo" and "zlotys". Numbers in some unused currency are useless as a unit, so those two specifically should try to give some sort of rough comparison of their purchasing power or relative wealth, but there are plenty more. Just short bits of context can solve a lot of these technical terms. - Taxman 16:11, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Tnx for your comments. I removed about half red links, mostly for some some small towns/villages that may not exist anymore. I believe that mentioned people are encyclopedia-worthy, as well as the terms you mention. I'd appreciate more on what you find is 'Polish jargon'. I added an explantion to starostwo (it was red linked anyway), and zloty, which has its own article and it is still a name of Polish contemporary currency. As for more sources, I added 2 more Polish ones, but I feel I am getting close to scraping the barel bottom here - or at least of my own bookshelf :). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:10, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok if the rest of the red links are to notable things/people then so be it, thats fine. Adding those sources is great. 1) Well, I said there were Polish words and also some jargon, and there are, so I'll try to point out a bunch. What the Cossack register is still needs to be explained, also "wojsko kwarciane", "pasha", "Cossack's raids (chadzki)" (they are forbidden, but what makes them something unique worth noting they are forbidden?), "hussars" (in the image caption), "talars", "the Kantymir's forces" (who/what is that?), "Ali pasha" (who/what?), "tabors", and "voivode". 2) By the way, is "Kryków" what we would know Americanized as Krakow? 3) More context on where some of these places are, like "Cecora" could say (on Moldova, near the black sea). There are many, many like that. You don't need to tell where every town listed is, as long as the paragraph makes it clear where in general the action it is discussing takes place. That is lacking in most discussions in this article where towns and battles are discussed. For many, I can't even tell what country the action is taking place in, whether home in Poland or off somewhere. 4) It still really needs some sort of a general comparison of the buying power of the zloty in this time period. Otherwise the few times it quotes numbers in zlotys is not helpful. - Taxman 16:11, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Tnx. Although I am not sure if we should explain *every* term that has its own article, and as a sidenote - not all of what you mention are Polish words, there are Turkish and Russians in here as well. Fixes: 1) created an article about Cossack register, first use in text has (list of priviliged Cossacks in the Commonwealth military) 2) wojsko kwarciane has its own article, first use now has (regular Commonwealth army) 3) pasha first use now has (high official in the Ottoman Empire) 4) chadzki now redirects to history of Cossacks where they're explained in two long paragraphs, added a sentence briefly explaining them here 5) caption is no place to explain the terms, and hussars are a rather known miliatry term - IMHO, still added ...(Commonwealth elite heavy cavalry) to the first use in body. 6) talar and zloty have their own articles and at present I have no data for their purchasing power in the 17th century. I think the context makes it clear they were coins. 7) Kantymir is an Ottoman commander, I have no further sources on him ATM, same with Ali pasha, 8) tabor is already explained in the text as a type of fortified formation and has its own article 9) voivode first use now notes it is similar to palatine), 10) There are many towns and places, I adimit in some cases I have no idea where they are - more or less. More notable ones are visible on the map and have their own links. For the rest, as I wrote, sometimes even professional historians today have no little idea where they are. However I tried to make certain all paragraphs state if the given campaign took place south on Ukraine, east in Russia, north near the Baltic Sea, ect. - I belive this is enough for now, this is not The tour of Koniecpolski footsteps via GPS :). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:44, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * The fixes all seem pretty good to me, though I did not have time to pour over every one. As to 10, I know you are exaggerating, since if you read what I wrote above, I was just asking for a general idea of where these places are in the context of each paragraph, not GPS coordinates. Please make sure you do that as much as you can. Cecora, the example I noted above, doesn't even tell us approximately where it is. But in any case, a great article, and as I noted above, not worth objecting over nitpicks. - Taxman 18:15, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support though improvements are still actively ongoing. The red-links expose Wikipedia's weakness in this area. Links that are really only relevant to this man's biography (i.e. his mother?) should be eliminated. Nationalist agendas seem pleasantly minimalized in this article. --Wetman 09:50, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Support and propose the following wording of the opening para:
 * Support &mdash; I think the article is in much better shape now (it could have done with a better peer review). It is a good, readable article and deserves featured status. I await your next article, Piotr. Gareth Hughes 13:53, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * The problem with Peer Review is that it gets much less attention then FAC. There were times that more then half articles passed months in pr without a single comment; it has improved now but it is IMHO still less useful then FAC. This article during its peer review process got got only one comment... Tnx for all the comments here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:31, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Some of the pictures appear to be overlapping the text a bit. Other than its a great article. Like use of slightly imaginative (but not stupid) headings, mixed alignment of images. Support --ZayZayEM 02:26, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)