Talk:Battle of Grunwald (Matejko)

Portrayals

Someone could add explanation what persons are portrayed in the picture, and explain why they are important. It's a case of symbolism rather than realism.--Lokyz 20:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments from B-class review

I've reviewing the article for B class, and I had two comments.

• "in 1902 the painting was bought from Rosenblum's heirs and displayed in Warsaw." I added {{by whom}} after "was bought". If that information is available, please add it; otherwise, remove the tag.
• I would love to learn more about Wyspiański's parody of the painting, which is mentioned only in the caption. It would be better if something were said in the article's text.

Neither issue was significant, and I've promoted the article. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:24, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

• I don't recall the sources saying "by whom". Wyspiaski-wise, please note that the article already said "The painting inspired Stanisław Wyspiański, who mentioned it in several of his works.". I think the source goes into more detail, along the lines (IIRC) that the parody is critical of the original as "too complex". --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 04:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

In Lego

Is it worth mentioning that there's a Lego version of the painting [1] or is that just too much trivia?VolunteerMarek 20:49, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

(Actually, since supposedly that's the largest "painting" made out of lego, it may be notable in its own right).VolunteerMarek 20:53, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Nice, would be cooler as a 3d diorama :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 05:47, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• The whole massive set-up, under the towering inflatable tent, is clearly visible in this photo (very impressive indeed). [2] Poeticbent talk 19:03, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Grunwald (painting)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 09:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I propose to review this article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

On first inspection, I see a well written and worthy article. One or two points struck me:

• Would it be possible to have a larger version of the picture when one clicks on it? Immediately under the picture it states "Size of this preview: 800 × 340 pixels. Other resolutions: 320 × 136 pixels | 640 × 272 pixels | 1,024 × 435 pixels | 1,280 × 544 pixels." Can you use the 1280 x 544 pixel version?

• I don't think it is possible; I believe this is how MediaWiki engine for pictures works. One can access the high res by clicking on the link. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• I was not aware that one could click on a higher resolution tag and see the picture better in all its intricate detail. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• The lead is very brief. I think it should contain a better summary of the rest of the article.

• Agreed, expanded.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• You could mention that the painting is in oils in the body of the article.

• Done.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• The word "scepter" is mentioned and needs wikilinking or explaining.

• Done.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• Can you deal with the "by whom?" tag in the history section. "in 1902 the painting was bought[by whom?] from Rosenblum's heirs"

• Done.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• This sentence is awkward - "Modern scholarship indicates that he died in a cavalry duel, and not from peasant's hand."

• How would you suggest we deal with it? I could transform it into a note.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• Where there are two consecutive references at the end of one sentence, they should be in numerical order.

• Done.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• Some of the references state they are in Polish but others do not, even though they are actually in that language.

• Done.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• I wonder why you used "Understanding Matejko's painting The Battle of Grunwald" as an external link rather than as a source for the article?

Because it states: "To a significant degree, the analysis of the painting in the above is based on that posted in Polish by Marek Renzler on the eduseek.interklasa.pl website", which is already used as a source. PS. But I did find another source, and used it to expand the article further (the Gazeta Wyborcza article on the painting).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose is of good standard.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead section is now improved. Otherwise, layout is satisfactory and follows the MOS guidelines.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Sources are appropriately cited.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Many of the sources are in Polish and accepted in good faith.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Not as far as I am aware.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Topic is well covered
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Article remains focused on the topic.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No problem.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No problem.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	The copyright has expired as painting was done in 1878.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The images are very important to this article and are appropriately captioned.
	7. Overall assessment.	Article is a well written, thoroughly researched, account of this historic painting. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)