Talk:Casimir Pulaski/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 05:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll do this one.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Have done a brief tidyup of some text; there was the odd typo but please review my changes to make sure I haven't created any inconsistencies. Some other comments follow:

   1) Consider breaking the "In Poland" section down into subsections.

   Agreed, but can't think of what they'd be. Help? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

   To start with, the first paragraphs could be an "Early life", the following paragraph "Bar Confederation". The section starting "In May 1771..." could be a "In decline" or something similar. I would also remove the Biography heading as per the reviewer's comments below in "New Section." Zawed (talk) 10:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

   2) Inconsistent usage of "confederates" vs "Confederates" etc...

   3) Pulaski recruited a unit and on February 29, 1768 signed the act of the confederation. What was the consequence of signing the act?

   4) There are several references to Pulaski being besieged, in battle, etc...I assume that by this you mean him and his unit? This should be clarified.

   5) Early in August he met with the French emissary, Charles François Dumouriez. This is somewhat of a standalone sentence as it is presently used. I would delete it as Dumouriez and his impressions of Pulaksi is mentioned later.

   But it fits the chronology. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

   6) "spontaneous, more proud than ambitious, friend of the prince of Courland, enemy of the Potocki family, brave and honest" as well as popular among other commanders, as he refuses to follow orders and adhere to discipline, and allows others to do what they want as well. The bit "as well as..." onwards reads as though it should also be part of the quote.

   It's paraphrased from it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

   It needs to rephrased some more as it sounds too much like a quote and personal opinion. Zawed (talk) 08:21, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

   Well, it is still a part of Dumouriez personal opinion. Now, trust me, it is paraphrased from about twice as long wordy quote, ommitting much details. But I am simply not sure how to reword it, if you are still unhappy with it, may I ask for your help here? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:39, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

   Have revised a bit. I delete the reference to allowing others to do what they want as it was unclear who the others were. Zawed (talk) 10:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

   7) On September 8 he met Franciszka z Krasińskich. The chronology is out of sequence with the previous sentence.

   Will double check the date with source later. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

   Fixed, was 18th. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:39, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

   8) Several redlinks for battles - shouldn't these be capped...ie. Battle of...?

   9) In the United States - consider breaking down into subsections.

   10) ...and arguing his case. Arguing his case for what? A rank? Or join the army?

   11) Continental troops: you might want to wikilink Continental.

   12) brigadier general of the American cavalry. Wikilink the rank. I also note the reference to brigade general later in the article; is the same rank or different (as suggested by the link to brigade general)?

   I am pretty sure it's the same rank. Clarified. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

   13) and Congress passed a resolution that a monument should be dedicated to him. When?

   I'll check the source later to see if a date is given. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

   Found date, expanded. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:39, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

   14) Dablink: Podole

   15) Running a link report (from dashboard), there are a few requiring attention.

   Not sure which tool is this? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

   Refer this link: http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Casimir_Pulaski Zawed (talk) 08:21, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

   Thanks, done. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   1) I'm getting "Unknown parameter |translators= ignored (help)" for Note 1

   2) Running the Citation Error Report, there are issues with "The history of Georgia: Revolutionary epoch"

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   1) The stamp image has a free domain tag but this refers to the photograph of the stamp, not the stamp itself?

   Fixed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:39, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

   2) Not sure what the relevance of the coat of arms image is to Pulaski; it doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere in the article.

   It is mentioned in the lead, I added it to the main body, ref. It is a part of unofficial manual of style for Polish biographies (because coas were important to the Polish nobility). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:39, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

   Still awaiting your response on the above two points. Zawed (talk) 08:21, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I see there was a previous failed GA nomination, I will have a look at that as well to see if all issues raised have been addressed, but the above comments are all for now. Zawed (talk) 06:04, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I see a fair bit of work has gone into this article since the first GAN, and it looks like the issues have by and large been dealt with. On a second pass, I noted a few more things and added to my previous comments. Zawed (talk) 09:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed this review. I'll try to address all the issues within the next 48h. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I think I fixed most issues, other then those I commented on above. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

All right, I think this time it's mostly everything? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Just about, just the headings as noted above. The reviewer below has added a personal section. Given the content of the section, it probably should be included in the paragraph concerning his funeral and burial. Zawed (talk) 10:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Pulaski's Masonic involvements should be mentioned in with hs death and burial inasmuch as they relate to these events, but overall his Masonic activities were part of his personal life and evidently involved persons like George Washington, Benjamin Franklin and Lafayette, all prominent members of the Masonic order. I'm not saying we need to greatly expand on Pulaski's Masonic involvements but I wouldn't include all the existing content about this topic in with his death burial, etc, as this activity was indeed part of his personal life -- and perhaps part of his other political/military involvements. Presently I'm reading/searching through a fair number of sources that may cover any of this to see if there is anything worth further mention in the article.
Btw, it seems the article would do well/better if we could expand on Pulaski's early/family life a bit more. e.g.He never married but there must be more to say about his early/family life besides this, his parents and brief mention of his education. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll check if PSB has anything else to add later today. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The sentence following the military life section needs to be cited if it is to stay. And the coat of arms image should be moved up to the personal life section. Zawed (talk) 10:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Struck out sentence, pic moved. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:45, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: 'Military life' section: Now we have an empty section that serves to only list subsections. In any event, it seems the general statement about Pulaski's notable military career could have been cited rather then outright removed. I'm not completely familiar with Pulaski but I suppose I could be the one who has to hunt down a source for a (needed) intro' statement to the 'Military life' section. If we are going to keep the Military life section, it should have a general and introductory statement for the sub sections that follow. All well written publications have text following any heading. Article is lacking in basic composition IMO. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:32, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

All good intentions aside, uncited text shouldn't have really been added to an article undergoing a GA review without discussion. Furthermore, in my view, the removed text was out of place as it was an unnecessary summary of elements of the lead. A more logical solution to your issue of an empty section would be to revise the section headings. Zawed (talk) 01:17, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Often times general and/or definitive points are reiterated in compositions, be they essay, narrative or encyclopedic, however, you are correct in that adding uncited text, general or otherwise, wasn't perhaps the best approach for an article undergoing the scrutiny of a GA review. I did so thinking the details of these matters were already cited in the body of the text and on that note would be permissible. If the consensus is not to repeat any important point whatsoever then we should remove the empty section. It makes for a void in the article IMO and will only invite other editors to put something there in the future. Btw, the statement about Pulaski distinguishing himself is also not cited in the lede. While we're on that topic, aside from the controversy about time/place of death, the existing lede doesn't say anything about Pulaski's personal life, beliefs or anything else but his military involvements, so it would seem we need to work on that also. In any case I will go along with consensus and/or GA reviewer's directives here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:18, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

The lead is a summary of the major points of his life, and he is more notable for his military career than anything else. I am comfortable with the content of the lead. I have opted to revise the headings myself and consolidated several repeated refs which I hadn't noticed before. I also added a cite required tag for the last sentence in the Southern Front section. It looks like it has become uncited following breaking down of the original paragraph. Zawed (talk) 08:21, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Currently the lede is very short. Since the article is a biography, with the page title bearing Pulaski's name only, and like most if not all biographies, we should include a summary of his entire life in the lede while of course giving emphasis to what Pulaski is notable for. If there are no objections I'll add a couple of comments to this effect in the lede while making sure the overall emphasis remains on his military life. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:27, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Lede work

These are a couple of additions (in bold) I propose for the current lede, taking into account lede, first paragraph considerations:

• Kazimierz Michał Wacław Wiktor Pułaski of Ślepowron coat of arms ... (March 6, 1745 – October 11, 1779) was a Polish nobleman, soldier and military commander who has been called "the father of American cavalry". Born in Warsaw into a prominent Catholic family he uncharacteristically never took on a wife. Following in his father's footsteps he became interested in politics at an early age and soon became involved in the military and the revolutionary affairs in Poland at that time. Despite his fame, until recently, there have been uncertainties and controversies surrounding both his place and date of birth and burial.

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:52, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Zawed (talk) 22:14, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

It looked fine to me also, however one of the items discussed was just deleted. Apparently being born into a prominent Catholic family isn't worth mentioning in the lede with half a sentence -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks like the nominating editor made the change so I would go with it. Zawed (talk) 08:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Going over review, it appears all issues addressed, have updated checklist and passing as GA. Zawed (talk) 09:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps being from a 'prominent' Catholic family is a detail that is better left out of the lede, however I still feel we should mention it so the readers know Pulaski came from such a family, as opposed to a common or poor family. If there are no objections, I'll make this distinction in the 'Personal life' section. In any case, we did it. We have a GA. (a Great Article! ) -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)