Wikipedia:Peer review/Henryk Stażewski/archive1

Henryk Stażewski


I would like to take this article to FAC and was encouraged by two mentors to seek peer review prior to nominating. Any feedback will be much appreciated!

Thanks,  Ppt91    talk   22:22, 29 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Courtesy pings to @Ceoil and @Gerda Arendt who have volunteered their time to read the article.  Ppt91    talk   18:02, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @UndercoverClassicist I wanted to send a courtesy ping, considering how helpful and fruitful our past exchanges have been. I realize you might be busy with other work, though I would be very grateful for your input.
 * Note: I recently changed my signature to better conform to WP:SIGAPP   Ppt91    talk   18:58, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Always a pleasure working with you: very happy to give this a look in the next couple of days. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:09, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Gerda Arendt Thank you very much for your comments! I've been busy with several IRL commitments, but I appreciate your taking the time to go through the article and look forward to incorporating your feedback.  Ppt91    talk   20:42, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Ceoil
As said before, the article is in very good shape. I'd prefer to edit directly than make a list of demands here, but anyhting substantive I might spot will be brough up here. Give me a week or so and will give overall impression. Ceoil (talk) 19:49, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, no issues with reverting me on any changes you disagree with. Ceoil (talk) 19:50, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ceoil Thank you so much. As you very well know, I am really appreciative of your time and your guidance.  Ppt91    talk   14:33, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Comments by UndercoverClassicist
A lovely piece of work: it has certainly put into perspective how little I know about modern art! The usual laundry-list of suggestions and nit-picks below. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:10, 6 July 2023 (UTC)


 * @UndercoverClassicist This is great and very helpful feedback. Thanks, as always, for being so generous with your time! I'll try to get through and address all of your comments over the next week. :-)  Ppt91    talk   14:00, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Lead

 * The third character of the English phonetic spelling (ə) isn't a normal English character; as we've already got the IPA, suggest replacing with a. ✅ done
 * His career spanned seven decades: This is in a very prominent place in the article; I'd suggest reserving that prime real estate for the more notable material that immediately follows, and perhaps moving the simple length of his career to the last paragraph of the lead. leaving for now, but something I'll think about
 * the a.r. group? ✅ done
 * Looks as though there's (mostly, though not always) no the in this article but there (always) is in the article of that name. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:58, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * In 1939, Stażewski's career was hindered by the outbreak of World War II: as this hinderance presumable lasted longer than a year, suggest Stażewski's career was hindered by the outbreak of World War II in 1939 ✅ done
 * he returned to painting but was faced with the imposition of Stalinism and Socialist Realism.: I know it's the lead, but I'd at least gesture at how these things affected him: faced with implies that they were problems for him, but it's not really clear how. changed to "faced" for simpler phrasing and keeping for now, as I think it is quite well explained in the body later
 * artist-centered exhibition venue: this reads a little like an advertisement: is there a more pedestrian or everyday way to say this?
 * harnessed various non-objective vocabularies: this might be a little obscure for most readers (it certainly is for this one). ✅ done
 * Stażewski positioned himself: this reads as if it was his own self-assessment. Can we say "was", "is considered", "gained a reputation as..."? ✅ done

Early life and work
'''* in Poland and Europe: Poland is in Europe, so this should be slightly rephrased ("and other European countries?"). ✅ done
 * Introduce Stanisław Lentz. ✅ done
 * Text in Polish (or other non-English languages) should be in lang templates. will need to fix that throughout and marking as to-do
 * In 1921, he participated in Wystawa Formistów (The Formist Exhibition) at the Society for the Encouragement of Fine Arts in Warsaw and later that year, he showed his work—together with several early compositions by a fellow Polish painter Mieczysław Szczuka—at the Polish Artists' Club in Warsaw: a long sentence; suggest splitting at the and. ✅ done
 * Most of first paragraph of the Polish Constructivism section is block-cited to an entire book chapter, which is about eighty pages long. Could each sentence be cited to the specific pages of the source that justify it? On another note, if Levinger wrote the book, it would be more usual to cite the whole book in the bibliography rather than the chapter alone; doing the latter implies that it's an edited volume. started including template across the article and this is on the list
 * two Moscow Constructivist collectives: lc Constructivist, or else uc throughout. ✅ done (if I understood correctly)
 * Looks good to me. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:58, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @UndercoverClassicist I only saw your multiple replies after drafting my longer response below. (My notifications don't seem to work well and it's an ongoing issue...) Let me address these as soon as I have a moment!  Ppt91    talk   22:07, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * recognizing the role of an artist as that of an engineer as well as a scientist aiding in the process of social transformation: this is too subjective a sentiment to follow the very objective verb recognizing. It might also be a little too metaphorical for an encyclopaedia's own voice. "I'll likely just directly cite it from the source to avoid confusion when I include page numbers"
 * and he argued that "a painting's systematic quality connected it to contemporary civilization in a unilateral action—from science and machines to works of art: are these Stażewski's own words? Clarify if not: if so, I'm surprised that he uttered them in the past tense. I believe so, now cited to specific page
 * Through analyzing "the constituent parts of their painting: space, faktura, line, and color,": a direct quotation feels odd here for what is essentially a statement of bare fact. changed but want to keep "space, faktura, line, and color" as it is quite specific
 * WP:NONFREE would really like it to be attributed in text, at least for now (this is under discussion in various places). UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:58, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * the Constructivist artists were not completely beholden to the notions of intuition or talent: what exactly does this mean? contrasts the idea of a singular artist working for their own recognition versus those concerned with the needs of the society; there is inherent idealism in this line of thinking and it might be a good idea to give more context, which I will think about
 * Stażewski, working with Strzemiński and his wife Katarzyna Kobro among other artists: Stażewski's or Strzemiński's? ✅ done
 * Inspired by leftist politics, Polish Constructivists associated with Blok had sought to use abstraction: sought, surely, rather than had sought? ✅ done
 * Stazewski became one of the co-founders of Praesens (1926–1929) and later a.r. group (1929–1936): we say later that these were avant-garde groups of artists, but I'd do so here when they're first mentioned. ✅ done
 * interior and furniture design: a slightly awkward zeugma; design in the context of interior design doesn't mean quite the same thing as it does in the context of furniture design. Suggest rephrasing for elegance. ✅ done
 * in their actual impact on the Polish post-World War I society: more concise as of limited impact upon Polish society? Similarly, completed instead of managed to complete? ✅ done
 * induced the Polish avant-garde, up until then largely autonomous, with a sense of social commitment: I'm not sure that induced quite works here (imbued?), and I'd think about the word autonomous: it means 'without external governance' rather than 'uninterested in others'. changed the first suggestion; keeping the second, as autonomous here refers to the concept of modernist autonomy, i.e. a work existing in and of itself, without social impact; might need to add a note
 * Agreed that a note is a good idea when we're using an everyday word in a non-everyday fashion. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:58, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Introduce Kazimir Malevich, and explain briefly what Suprematism was. ✅ done
 * the key ideas of Suprematism regarding the autonomy of art and the superiority of non-objective visual forms: a little obscure, I think. should be clearer now, but I am happy to expand
 * The quote's clearer than the previous explanation, though see earlier point about WP:NONFREE. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:58, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Relationships with European Avant-gardes: lc avant-gardes? ✅ done
 * We've translated Polish names into English, so should do the same for French ones (Cercle et Carré and possibly Abstraction-Création). '''might need to add lang templates but these are not usually translated when used in English
 * Hm: there's plenty of hits on Google Books for the term with its English translation, at least on first use: art scholars might assume that everyone speaks French, but I don't think we can do that for the general reader. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:58, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Malevich coined the term Suprematism: italicise or quote per MOS:WORDSASWORDS.

Post-war career

 * He took an apartment on Piękna Street with artists Jan Rogoyski and Maria Ewa Łunkiewicz-Rogoyska: artists Jan ... and Maria is a false title; somewhat a matter of taste, but I think the artists... is preferable. ✅ done
 * Link and explain biomorphic abstraction. ✅ done no direct link but added an explanation; it might still be improved
 * Can we have a more precise source for rigged legislative elections? It's currently cited to a whole book, but is the sort of statement that seems very likely to be challenged. ✅ done good call; this is an established historical fact, but I agree that it needs to be sourced, so I changed the reference and included a specific page to avoid confusion
 * Earlier that year, Stażewski had co-designed decorative glass panels for the large-scale Wystawa Ziem Odzyskanych (Exhibition of Recovered Territories) held in the city of Wrocław between July and October 1948: do we know who his co-designers were? I am not sure and might have to get back to this
 * As Ziemie Odzyskane simply means Recovered Territories, I'd suggest putting the explanation first and then clarifying that these were known (slightly misleadingly) as Recovered Territories in Poland. changed but I wonder if it actually reads better now; feel free to suggest further edits here
 * It's perhaps a little unclear whether ich had become a centerpiece of the early Stalinist propaganda refers to the exhibition or the territories. I'd remove the the in that sentence regardless. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:58, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * socio-political ecosystem: just system is better; this is currently a bit of a mixed metaphor. ✅ done
 * a figurative art doctrine reliant on idealized depictions of life under socialism: is it worth clarifying that Socialist Realism is very much not abstract or avant-garde? I removed the avant-garde mention entirely, as it was somewhat confusing
 * Is academicism quite the right word for what the Soviet authorities wanted, or was it a little anachronistic by the mid 20th century? I tend to associate it with the 19th century and the more grandiose style of French painting. You're correct in seeing this term as anachronistic and, in many ways, this is exactly what they were going for in their process of eliminating modern art and its formalism; I might later add a note on Socialist Realism for more clarity.
 * Where explanatory footnotes are cited to a source, I'd put that source in as a footnote rather than an inline reference: at the moment, it's simply a parenthetical reference without the parentheses, which is no longer considered appropriate.
 * Could we contextualise the Gold Cross of Merit: was this a big deal? ✅ done
 * The Thaw was introduced briefly in the Stalinist Poland section, but then Reliefs opens with what seems to be the beginning of it: the chronology is confusing here. changed it slightly but I think I would like to keep the Thaw details here especially regarding the 1956 speech by Nikita Khrushchev
 * Surely the sentence beginning Toward the end of the Stalinist regime should come before The death of Stalin in 1953 and the subsequent political Thaw of 1956 precipitated the return of modernism., especially as the 1953 commission was very much not the return of modernism? UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:58, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Malevich, whose Suprematist Composition: Aeroplane Flying from 1915 Stażewski had reproduced in 1962.: is there a usable image of either Malevich's or Stażewski's version - or even both? ✅ done removed a Socialist Realist painting of his as it was not a good quality reproduction
 * a series of White Reliefs made in 1961: as it's a title, would suggest rephrasing to a series called White Reliefs. ✅ done
 * a small group exhibition: is this an exhibition of a small group, or a small exhibition of a group of artists? Suggest a rephrase to clarify. ✅ done removed "small"
 * Stażewski's writings from that period evidence that he saw himself as an "active contributor to the enquiry into abstraction throughout the 1960s and beyond". As we had further up, it sounds as if these are his own words, but I don't think they are. ✅ done rephrased to reflect the art historian's voice here
 * ex-pat: to my ears, a little informal; I'd use expatriate in formal writing. ✅ done
 * Stażewski's work was also shown at Marlborough-Gerson Gallery: at the Marlborough-Gerson Gallery? I think this is actually correct without the definite article or at least the phrasing I have always seen in similar contexts
 * Google Books seems to be with that; a very few hits for the but much more without. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 21:58, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * What is Galerie 16? included Paris
 * studio-apartment: a little ambiguous: I'm not sure whether this was an apartment which doubled as a studio, an apartment with no internal divisions (a studio apartment), or both. removed studio to avoid confusion and because it's not a critical piece of information especially considering that the space is discussed in more detail in the following sentence
 * which had served as a salon for Polish artists and intellectuals throughout the remaining three decades of the communist rule in Poland: given that we just mentioned 1988, the word remaining suggests that communist rule continued until 2018. ✅ done

Legacy

 * Owing to his long-standing career, Stażewski has had an important influence on the history of Polish and European modern and contemporary art: I think you might be selling him a little short here: he wasn't only influential because he stuck around for a long time. ✅ done expanded to include multifaceted practice as well
 * Who was Theo van Doesburg: does he rate a redlink? ✅ done
 * Suggest using citation templates for Further Reading and spelling out any abbreviations in full (you can add ref=none to the template to avoid triggering a Harvard error). However, if these works are important or interesting to students of Stażewski, should they be cited somewhere in the article? as far as the scope of the article goes, even considering FA level, I don't think there is much more to add from these sources; frankly, I felt that the page warranted a Further reading section, but I am not super happy with it and might need to reconsider what I want to include
 * Generally, my view on "Further Reading" sections is that they ought to eventually disappear as the article improves: either the sources in them have something useful to say about the topic that isn't already in the article, in which case comprehensiveness requires that we bring that material in and move the sources to the bibliography, or they have nothing useful to say that isn't already in the article, in which case they're now redundant and we should remove them. The only exception I've made recently is when the work itself is of some interest: e.g. it was written by the article's subject, or has some historic value separate from the information it contains. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 21:58, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Addressed most of the comments from UndercoverClassicist. There are still a few items left, but they are relatively minor. :-)  Ppt91    talk   19:26, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Gerda
Late follow-up to the nice invitation. I read the article on a small device, and had only few and minor concerns which I hope to find again now that I can also write. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:30, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Like Ceoil, I tend to make minor changes in the article rather than explaining. Please feel free to just revert without ado when you don't agree.

Lead Education ...
 * Can we have some date in the image caption? The image title says 1980s, which would be better than nothing. ✅ done
 * Is there anything to link to in Polish Constructivism, or is constructivism (art) well-known enough? Sadly, not yet, although it is on my to-do list in the next several months.
 * Do the groups such as Blok deserve appearing in the infobox? ✅ done
 * Could the founding of Blok get a year? It is mentioned earlier, so I did not include in the brackets.
 * I doubt that we need to tell people (in the lead!) that World War II broke out in 1939. ✅ done
 * This is the only biography on GA level I recall with no word on his personal life, not in the lead nor in the article. If nothing is known, possibly because he kept things for himself, I believe we should say so (in the article). Interesting observation and I definitely see your point. I think it is because his work life and personal life were intertwined and there isn't much that happened in his life that was not in some way connected to Stazewski's artistic practice; his relationship with Lunkiewicz-Rogoyska, for example, was both a collaboration and a personal relationship, but I see how this should be made more explicit. Do you think we should do a separate personal life section (which will inevitably be very short) or just fill in any potential blanks throughout the text?
 * I was asked a similar question by the GA reviewer of Berit Lindholm, and then found some things for a "Personal life" section, yes, short. I understand your "bold" replies, but in the FAC to come, better reply to each bullet with an indent, as in talk page discussions. Good luck for it! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:17, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Would Polish Artists' Club have an article in Polish? If yes, please establish an interlanguage link using ill. This is general, and goes for people and places as well. I am not sure and need to double check this. Otherwise, tried to link existing Polish articles.

Polish Constructivism ...
 * I wonder if we should say "World War I" when there was no other yet in history. I changed to the Great War, as it was then known, with World War I in brackets.
 * "new, modern society" strikes me as almost two words for the same, but English is not my native language, and I may be the only one. ✅ done
 * "At Blok, Stażewski had also collaborated" - why not "At Blok, Stażewski also collaborated"? ✅ done (just left "collaborated" instead)
 * "As a member of these avant-garde groups" - I think we heard "avant-garde" often enough ;) ✅ done

European
 * Paris Exhibition of Theatrical Art, - what's the French title? I can't find it, while the other one is easy: . I'd need to check; good catch!
 * I suggest to reduce the image captions to a minimum, and have the rest (translation, museum) in the body (where most of it is already anyway). I do like how the captions link to the institutions. Is this something that would be a big issue for FA review?
 * "... and opened to the public on 15 February 1931" - I'd have a simple date sooner, ending on the artists. Is it essential, this "to the public"? ✅ done

These are mostly addressed now. Ppt91   talk   20:02, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Taking a break here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:20, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

It has been over a month since the above comments were posted. Are you still working on this article? Z1720 (talk) 00:11, 26 August 2023 (UTC)


 * @Z1720 Thank you for following up. While I already addressed some of the comments, I never marked them as complete on this page and have since lost the momentum. To be completely honest with you, the last few weeks have been very busy for me IRL and I have not been as active on en-wiki. That said, I would certainly like to incorporate this generous feedback from other editors and I'll try to go through all of the remaining stuff by the end of next week.  Ppt91    talk   15:33, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Ppt91, for what its worth have also been tardy in looking at the article per your request, but have been looking now and have a very strong impression. I hope you get back to it soon :) Ceoil (talk) 16:10, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ceoil @Gerda Arendt @UndercoverClassicist I finally had a chance to go through your very generous and tremendously helpful feedback, including the comments above and direct article edits. There are a few minor items that I still need to fix and at least one structural comment I would like to address regarding the artist's personal life (an insightful observation from @Gerda Arendt). Once these are taken care of, do you think the article will be ready to submit for FAC review? Again, many thanks to all.  Ppt91    talk   22:02, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

It has been another month since the last comment, when you pinged the above people. Are you still hoping for more comments, or can this be closed? Z1720 (talk) 00:50, 12 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @Z1720 Thank you for your patience. I've been very preoccupied with multiple impending deadlines IRL over the last few weeks and have not had enough time to properly go through all of the remaining feedback. I can commit to responding to all by the end of this week; either way, please feel free to close by Sunday night. Thanks again.  Ppt91    talk   19:45, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I am closing this PR per Ppt91's comment above. A new PR can be reopened when the above have been considered. Z1720 (talk) 23:22, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Z1720 Just a note that the peer review is not listed as closed on article's talk page and presumably b/c of this still visible in Polish WikiProject's Article Alerts... <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)