Talk:Casimir Pulaski/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Magicpiano (talk · contribs) 02:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll bite. Fair warning: I see a lot of issues (which may not be fixable in a conventional review period), but I'll try to cover them and give time to address them. Magic♪piano 02:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing and prose

• While all of the sources consulted appear to biographic, it would be good to include sources that are specific to the campaigns CP was involved in. They may give a different assessment of his contributions (especially if the biographers used are prone to hagiography, something I have not investigated.)
  • It's a good idea, through I think this would be going beyond what's required for a GA article. For many topics there are possible sources to add, but if the article seems comprehensive to the point we cannot point out to a specific fact that needs more expansion, I think we should leave this until such a time that somebody can say "issue x is not covered well, see Smith XXXX and expand based on that." --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
• Appletons language survives, and needs to be eliminated. It is stilted and archaic, something that is especially apparent when juxtaposed with modern sentences.
  • Unfortunately, I am not an English native speaker. If you could list sentences in need of rewriting, I could try to do so. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
    • For a start, any sentence that is actually cited to Appletons (currently cite 17) should probably be rewritten. I've already mentioned a few below -- I'll flag more of them later with {{clarify}} tags. Magic♪piano 21:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
• The article needs more thorough copyediting; there is much evidence that prose was written by editors whose first language is not English (missing or incorrect articles and helping verbs are my diagnostic for this).
  • What you mean, the article has been written mostly by me. Guilty as charged, and not very able to fix that, I am afraid. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
• There is a general lack of causal connections between events. We almost never learn why CP goes where he goes (is he ordered, does he decide, is he forced by events; if he decided, why does he go to place A instead of B). This is important given that he is described as a "loose cannon"; which events gave him that reputation, and what did he do in them that led to it? In the detailed comments below, I ask questions about specific events that are illustrative of this problem, but the same sorts of questions are often applicable to any event being described here.
  • That's a valid point; sadly, I have exhausted the sources I had. For the most part, any expansion would require going beyond - which I am fine with, but I am not certain if this is something needed for GA level (A/FA, sure). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
    • I think at GA it needs to be clear what the major events and actions are that established his reputation. These events should have sufficient context to explain how that reputation was established, and to explain things like the "loose cannon" description, and what it was about Jasna Gora that brought him renown. At A/FA I would object if this was not done more comprehensively. Magic♪piano 00:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
• I'll also briefly note an annoyance that has to do with Polish geography. I strongly suspect the typical reader of this article will be ignorant of detailed Polish geography needed to understand the scope of CP's activities in the Bar Confederation. You really ought to place File:Bar Confederation 1768-1772.PNG here, and also provide basic text indicating things like the relationship between Czestochowa and Jasna Gora, and the general area of of the Confederation's operations (near the Austrian border, say). These things are not hard to do; when you don't do them, users end up clicking through many links just to find out how these places are related and where they are relative to more widely recognizable geography. (I'm not sure this is a show-stopping issue here, but it's a nontrivial readability problem.) Magic♪piano 00:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I have added the map, replacing a less useful painting. I am afraid however that I may not have the time to expand the article with more content.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
    • OK, I'll close the review then. As I said elsewhere, I may help fix some of the issues I see... Magic♪piano 18:56, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Lead

• First paragraph needs to be reorganized: parentheticals as written are awkward
  • Done, modelled under my recent GA Stanisław August Poniatowski, which I think conforms to the MoS on that. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
• I don't know what it means to be "of X coat-of-arms"; can this be phrased so someone ignorant of heraldry can understand it?
  • Hmmm. I think it is a rather standard form, naming one's coat of arms. It is linked... I am not sure how to better phrase it. You could say "His coat of arms was X", but I don't see much of a difference? Note that this sentence was rewritten for more clarity to address the issue raised above, perhaps it helps? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

In Poland

• Who is Poniatowski? (never linked, is this the later-mentioned king?)
  • Good catch, linked. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
• Polish military titles and units ought to be explained in rough English equivalents (or size of command given)
  • I tend to think that ilinking is sufficient, unless the given term is more relevant to the article. Again, this was sufficient in Stanisław August Poniatowski, where early on we have the term starost, also used here (not strictly military). FA Józef Piłsudski early on mentions gymnasium (school) and does not explain it. My recent milhist A-class Stanisław Koniecpolski does not explain castellan or hetman, although I do explain wojsko kwarciane. Cossack register and [[tabor (formation) are not explained, but I do so for Sejm and buława. To be frank, the reason is mostly - those were the terms that the reviewer insisted on, and no others. I am willing to explan the terms you list here and can be explained in the text without damaging the prose too much, but again, I'll note that it is common to rely only on blue links. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
• Example questions: why is he in Jasna Góra to begin with? Why did he go to Lublin afterward? what is the motivation in scheming to kidnap the king? These sorts of things are especially important to cover for major events that CP is best known for.
  • I guess I was not correct above; PSB does go into more details on occasion - I am just not sure how to work all of them in; to be honest - I summarized a lot of info from PSB, probably only 25% of the details it mentions I cover here (I consider that level of detail sufficient for GA; don't get me wrong - I'd like to see all of that detail and more added to the article one day, I just didn't feel like doing that for a GA level of comprehensiveness). But the details I omit are for the most part information on smaller locals, exact paths / regions he fought in, some dates, and such. For Jasna Gora - we are not given a reason. PSB just says "next, he moved to JG and capture it", why - it doesn't explain (one can assume he thought it was a good idea at the time, but stating so in the article would be ORish). My three sentences in the article summarize half a page of the PSB entry (probably 1 book page worth of info). For Lublin, it mentions that the raid there was planned by him and another commander, again, we are not told why. If I was translating all info from PSB, I'd add 3-4 more sentences saying what he did near Lublin. And so on. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
    • This is one of the problems of relying heavily on biographical dictionaries -- I find the ones I refer to (American and British for the most part) often don't tell us why things happen, even in longer entries. It's quite frustrating. Magic♪piano 00:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
• "Thus he spent the desolate year 1775 in France, with six weeks at the turn of the year, imprisoned for debts, until his allies gathered enough funds to arrange for his release." is hopelessly archaic and needs to be rewritten.
  • I hope this sounds better. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

In the United States

• "He saved the army from a surprise at Warren Tavern, near Philadelphia." Warren Tavern link is to Charlestown, MA, not in PA. This sentence lacks any meaningful context; no date or specific location given, and relevant force movements are not described. (This may refer to the Battle of the Clouds or some other minor action, but I can't tell.)
  • I added a better ref (Google Book preview rather than snippet) with a date. I don't know what to do with a link (red link it to Warren Tavern, PA? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
    • I would either remove the sentence entirely (since it is so devoid of context it is nearly useless as written), or find a proper source that explains the action. (Here is a 19th century account that actually provides some context. Magic♪piano 21:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
• "Henry Wadsworth Longfellow commemorated in verse this episode of Pulaski's life." this appears to be an Appletons' sentence; it lacks context (what is the name of the poem, and does it really commemorate CP's meeting with Gates, the immediately preceding material?)
  • I found a better ref; it sems the poem commemorates the consecration of the legion's banner. See also [1] and I am open to moving this sentence to the legion's article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
• Why was he ordered to Little Egg Harbor? Who was responsible for the losses incurred there?
  • PSB does not go into any details, it covers this incident in one sentence ("On DATE the Legion suffered heavy losses at PLACE"). If you can find a better source on this, please let me know. (The linked 19th century source is certainly of poor quality, and I see it only as a version of "further reading" for this incident, ideally to be moved to such a section in the battle of Little Egg Harbor article once somebody creates it).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Stryker (the author of the monograph on the Little Egg Harbor business) is likely to be fairly reliable despite the age of the work; Stryker was probably the major historian of New Jersey in his day. His work on the battles of Trenton and Princeton, for example, is regularly cited by modern historians. This work is probably of better (or at the very least comparable) quality than the Appletons material sprinkled throughout the article. (Also see Little Egg Harbor massacre.) Magic♪piano 21:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
• Does the "punitive expedition" have a name? (Answer: yes; this is another Appletons sentence)
  • Thanks, linked and remove the word petty. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
• What was Pulaski's role and fate at Charleston? (The garrison surrendered; where was Pulaski and his unit?)
  • PSB goes into a little more detail: "P. prevented the town from surrendering, and aided by Lincoln, with several assaults in May and June forced the British to retreat to Savannah". If you this is useful, I can add it to the article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Actually, I didn't catch on to this at first (not paying attention to dates closely enough), but CP could not have been in the Siege of Charleston (which "the town's defense") is linked to -- that siege took place after Savannah. He may have been in movements during the summer of 1779 whose only major action was the Battle of Stono Ferry. Magic♪piano 21:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
      • Interesting. PSB clearly states that CP arrived in Charleston on 8 May. British besieged it on 10 May. CP helped to defeat them and push them back towards Savannah. PS. The account [=http://books.google.com/books?id=xTXQHhj6bScC&pg=PA90 here] seems to be a rough collaboration; the account here is more detailed, and suggests that Pulaski contributed to the British decision to withdraw (neither account discusses the town's surrender). But there is a simple explanation: Siege of Charleston is about a 1780 battle, and the accounts described here are about 1879 one. I wonder if we should red link battle of Charleston (1789)? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
        • The 1779 event at Charleston hardly qualifies as a siege -- the city was never fully blockaded, and Prevost did not really have the resources to do so. Pulaski's attack, which Kajencki suggests contributed to the British decision to leave, is omitted entirely from most accounts I've seen of these movements (and even Kajencki's claim isn't really well supported). The British decided to leave because Lincoln was returning with the full army -- they left as soon as they learned that. You could certainly redlink Battle of Charleston (1779) -- it might be worth writing up at some point. (I'd also add words noting that Pulaski's activities harassing the British were a boost to local morale, which Collins and Nolte mention.) Magic♪piano 00:45, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
• D'Estaing is usually styled "Admiral" at this point in his career (even though his French rank was something like "lieutenant general des armees navale")
  • Switched to.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Formatting, layout, images

• Formatting and layout are OK, except the coat of arms image near the top, which is squashing the text
  • Image looks good on my screen, feel free to move it where you'd like it to be. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
• I have not yet checked the imagesImage check:
  • File:Pulaski.png has incorrect provenance (photography did not exist in the 18th century, so the photograph does not date to then), and should be assumed to be under copyright since the author (i.e. photographer) is unknown. This image should for these reasons not even be in Commons.
    • Ageed, source is © 2012 Georgia Historical Society (GHS) , so it should go. I have asked for it to be deleted from Commons. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  • File:Savannah 1779.png appears to be incorrectly licensed (the license granting GFDL mentions Polish Senators, not paintings).
    • As the author died in 1940, I've simply changed this to PD-art. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  • File:Slepowron.svg has two different copyright assertions (PD vs. CC; neither of them is problematic here, but this would be flagged in an FA image review).
  • Other images are fine as far as GA is concerned; an FA image review may flag other less serious issues. --Magic♪piano 17:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I am open to suggestions on how to proceed. I can hold the review open, but I think there is a significant amount of work to do. I would offer to help (at least with the American materials and the prose), but I'm actually not overly familiar with most of the events Pulaski was in, and it would entail some research. I'd also have to close the review. Magic♪piano 16:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Noted. I'll try to respond in detail and address the issues round Thur/Fri, hopefully. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I see this was closed as a fail. Can the reviewer give the rationale and summarize the issues that were not resolved? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:17, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Certainly; the reasons for failure would be criteria 1 and 3. The main issue is this (quoting myself above):

• I think at GA it needs to be clear what the major events and actions are that established his reputation. These events should have sufficient context to explain how that reputation was established, and to explain things like the "loose cannon" description, and what it was about Jasna Gora that brought him renown. At A/FA I would object if this was not done more comprehensively.

Merely stating that you've exhausted the sources available to you is insufficient; if you don't have access to sources that answer these sorts of questions then you need to recruit someone who does, to help you. (I find it hard to believe sources don't exist to answer questions of this sort about a figure of his stature, given the existence of book-length biographies. I would imagine histories that detail the Bar Confederation uprising would also shed light on some of the "why" questions I posed.)

Other outstanding issues:

• I mentioned the need for copyediting.
• The "Warren Tavern" business was never expanded, fixed, or removed.
• The incorrect linking of Siege of Charleston (which CP did not participate in) was not fixed, and his role in what happened at Charleston in 1779 (which added to his popularity, even if it did nothing of much strategic value) is not elaborated. (Given that I worked on Battle of Stono Ferry a while back, I may be able to fill this in.)

After you stated that you would not be making any further changes, I assumed (after waiting a week) that these issues would remain unresolved, and consequently closed the review. Magic♪piano 19:09, 7 October 2012 (UTC)