Talk:Chodakowski Family
Latest comment: 26 days ago by Marcelus in topic Source verification
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Source verification edit
@Marcelus, I looked at the source you provided here [1] and I found not one mention of Mazovia in the whole article. Neither does it say that the family came from the Kingdom of Poland. Did I miss something in the article? I'm sure that you're aware that the family being known in Lithuania from the 16th century does not necessarily mean that it wasn't there before, it's just that they're mentioned then. +JMJ+ (talk) 15:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- In the body of the article it is stated that the family came from the vicinity of Sochaczew (Chodaków is now part of Sochaczew). Every heraldry states this, such as Boniecki.Marcelus (talk) 17:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- But the source you provided did not say that, so I had to adjust it here.--+JMJ+ (talk) 20:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- References aren't required in the lede if informations are already referenced in the body, please self-revert Marcelus (talk) 18:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Could you please be so kind as to link to where in Wikipedia policy it says that? I can't find it right now. The main body says that the family may have originated from there and the source provided is from 1905. Surely there must be newer sources available about such a noble family? This article has problems with sourcing, as it just references, for example, the "State Historical Archives of Russia in St. Petersburg" without any explanation. There is a strong case to be made that this article should be rewritten with better sources.--+JMJ+ (talk) 20:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Chodakowski family was minor one, 1905 Uruski armorial is a thrustworthy source. Please read MOS:LEADCITE: Because the lead usually repeats information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. It's not a controversial information so the redundant citation isn't needed.Marcelus (talk) 21:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- If you say it was a minor family, then is it really a notable enough family to have their own article? There are barely enough sources here and I've seen you cause the deletion [2] of the article [3] Antanas Chodakauskas that had far better sourcing and case for notability. If it is not notable to have sufficient sources, then is it notable enough?--+JMJ+ (talk) 19:57, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- Chodakowski family was minor one, 1905 Uruski armorial is a thrustworthy source. Please read MOS:LEADCITE: Because the lead usually repeats information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. It's not a controversial information so the redundant citation isn't needed.Marcelus (talk) 21:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- Could you please be so kind as to link to where in Wikipedia policy it says that? I can't find it right now. The main body says that the family may have originated from there and the source provided is from 1905. Surely there must be newer sources available about such a noble family? This article has problems with sourcing, as it just references, for example, the "State Historical Archives of Russia in St. Petersburg" without any explanation. There is a strong case to be made that this article should be rewritten with better sources.--+JMJ+ (talk) 20:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- References aren't required in the lede if informations are already referenced in the body, please self-revert Marcelus (talk) 18:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- But the source you provided did not say that, so I had to adjust it here.--+JMJ+ (talk) 20:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)