Wikipedia:Peer review/Witold Lutosławski/archive1

Witold Lutosławski
This article is about a major 20th century composer. I would welcome suggestions for its improvement with a view to its becoming a featured article.

It lacks images, but I am afraid I do not have any which are available for use by Wikipedia &mdash; if anyone has then that would be terrific. --RobertG &#9836; talk 28 June 2005 11:37 (UTC)

I am pulling this peer review request (no new response for nine days): thanks everyone who contributed, the article is much improved. I will submit it as FAC on my return from Wikiholiday and when time permits some time mid to late August. --RobertG &#9836; talk 10:59, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Image finding is made easier by the fact of Template:Polishpd - i.e. most if Polish pre-1994 photos and such are in fact PD. Also, remeber that album covers are fair use. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 4 July 2005 10:31 (UTC)
 * I don't feel confident enough in the copyright laws to upload album covers under fair use. I am aware that many people do without qualms.  All the relevant pre-1994 photos I have found in books carry clear copyright status (which Template:Polishpd specifies as the exception to PD) and the publication dates of most images on the web will be after 1994.  Also "Polish image" does not equate to "Image of Polish person".  So I still don't believe I will be able to help with images.  I'd still be grateful for anyone who can!  --RobertG &#9836; talk 4 July 2005 13:47 (UTC)


 * An excellent article. I didn't see any significant flaws and it's an interesting read. Just out of curiousity though, was the couple survived by any children? Perhaps I missed it in the text, but I didn't see any mention of offspring. Thanks. &mdash; RJH 2 July 2005 20:48 (UTC)
 * I don't know of any children - although I believe Danuta Lutosławska did have children by a previous marriage. --RobertG &#9836; talk 3 July 2005 18:39 (UTC)


 * Very good article. I linked Polish-specific terms, I think it could go to FAC soon - although more images would be recommended. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 4 July 2005 10:31 (UTC)
 * I am grateful to Piotr for taking the trouble to better wikilink many historical references. I have made changes to some edits because I believe that while they are interesting episodes in the history of Poland, they are not specifically relevant to Lutosławski's life: the change of status in Polish independence after WWI was only indirectly relevant to the family's return to their estates (it was the end of the war that enabled this move); the period of Poland's partition (123 years 1795-1918) is not directly relevant; while it is indirectly true that Poland's status as People's Republic after WWII affected him, it wasn't called People's Republic formally until 1952 so it is not directly relevant to what Lutosławski did in the late 1940s, and it is clear from the text that it was the rise of the Stalinists/Communists which affected his career.  In the introductory paragraph I feel it is more informative to have "party line" linked to Socialist realism (which was the party line which Lutosławski's opposed) than to have "party" linked to the Polish United Workers' Party.  --RobertG &#9836; talk 4 July 2005 13:05 (UTC)
 * I do feel that most of those ilinks - like to Second Polish Republic where he was born - should be kept in the article. I moved the link to Worker's party (which was, after all, *the party* he opposed) from lead to main text. We may lose the partitions link, it is not very relevant, although I see no harm in keeping it - the article is not that long that we need to shave it, IMHO. I recommend you look through History_of_Poland_%281945-1989%29 and History_of_Poland_%281918-1939%29 for some more ilinks of interest. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 4 July 2005 14:19 (UTC)
 * I'm still not convinced, Piotrus, as I think the two remaining links are actually misleading. I would like to reach agreement on your edits, because I have a very high regard for your knowledge of Polish history.  The Second Polish Republic is not where he was born, because he was born in 1913 and that entity did not exist until 1918.  Poland's regaining independence was not directly relevant to the Lutosławski's return home, and your edit implies that it was (they just returned home from Moscow when the war was over, as anyone would).  It wasn't specifically the PZPR's party line he refused to toe; firstly, "toeing the party line" is commonly used as a figure of speech (particularly apposite in this case), and not as a political statement; secondly the artistic illiberalism ultimately came from Stalin personally, was to some degree prevalent over the whole Eastern Bloc, and followed partly from the 1948 Zhdanov decree, so to add a link specifically to the PZPR implying it was the only factor is misleading.  I understand that you are keen to have references to articles about Polish history in the article; would it help if I added a "See also" section with links to relevant articles?  --RobertG &#9836; talk 4 July 2005 15:33 (UTC)
 * Feel free to move the ilinks and tweak my edits. Of course the Second Republic didn't exist before 1918, but it is where he lived for over 20 years. While I didn't read anything on Lutosławski before, and I agree that his family return had much to do with end of the war, I am sure that the development of idenpendent Poland carried much weigh in their decison of when and where to return (why didn't they return in 1917, when fighting on the Eastern Front stopped)? PZPR was the 'party in the party line', and a voice of the Stalin and later Soviet overlords, so it definelty desrvers a mention - after all, when the article sais that he opposed the goverment, it means he opposed the PZPR (PZPR was the goverment). Of course, it wasn't the only factor, and you are right to try to point that out. However, I think that instead of removing the monetion of PZPR, we should explain what those other factors were and mention them all - you may want to expand on this and paste the explantion you gave me above, to make things more clear. I view see also as a last resort - 9 times out of 10, it is better to try to incorporate references and ilinks in mainbody. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 4 July 2005 15:47 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Piotrus, I did! I hope I kept the sense of most of what you were saying.  I was bold and removed the reference to independence as a reason for their return: to answer your objection, they didn't return until late 1918 because Lutosławski's father was in Butyrska prison until his execution in September that year (the article now explains this).  --RobertG &#9836; talk 4 July 2005 17:07 (UTC)
 * Ok. But why do you keep removing the ilinks to Second Polish Republic and People's Republic of Poland? Remember: rewrite/move is good, deletion is not. And you can't say that the articles on the countries he lived in are not relevant to be linked? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 4 July 2005 22:12 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Piotrus. I hadn't removed the links permanently.  I think you've put them back in roughly where I was going to put them, anyway.  I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I thought I'd finished!  --RobertG &#9836; talk 5 July 2005 08:04 (UTC)