Talk:History of Poland during the Piast dynasty/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Viriditas (talk) 07:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this article. Viriditas (talk) 20:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

   Prose is very good in spots, with a little cleanup required in others. I would ideally like to see three paragraphs in the lead, representing each major section by century/period. (10-12, 13, 14) There should also be an effort to impart importance in the lead, rather than retelling historical data points. The reader asks, why is this important, and why should I keep reading, not how did it happen, and who did what.

   "The historically recorded Polish state begins with the rule of Mieszko I of the Piast dynasty in the second half of the 10th century."

   It would help the reader if you would follow this sentence by summarizing exactly what the Piast dynasty is and what they are or were known for in history. That's the kind of thing we want to do per WP:LEAD.  Done

   "Mieszko chose to be baptized in the Western Latin Rite in 966."

   Is this detail necessary for the lead section? After all, we are not talking about the Piast dynasty, but the history of Poland, Piast dynasty period, as you said previously.  Done

   the tribe of the Polans...became the main focus of the historic processes that gave rise to the Polish state.

   "Main focus of the historic processes" sounds like unnecessary verbiage. Is there a way you can shorten this and get down to brass tacks?  Done

   I would like to see standardization of dates in the headers so that reader can browse by century. I'm adding dates as I go, but please review and make changes you feel are necessary.  Done

   Per WP:EASTEREGG, can we name St. Stanislaus in the lead instead of linking to ecclesiastical authority? I say this, because it is one of the most fascinating stories in this article.  Done

   Per WP:SEEALSO, shouldn't the link to Poland during the Jagiellon dynasty be merged into the Louis I and Jadwiga of the Angevin dynasty section?  Done

   First paragraph should state the date range of the entire dynasty (10th to late 14th century)  Done

   "The western provinces of Silesia and Pomerania were lost after the fragmentation". The reader wonders what fragmentation? Perhaps this can be reworded or explained.

   "In the pact of 1374 known as the Privilege of Koszyce the Polish nobility, granted very extensive concessions, agreed to extend the Angevin succession to Louis' daughters, as Louis also had no sons." I think you are missing a few commas. Perhaps you mean: "In the pact of 1374, known as the Privilege of Koszyce, the Polish nobility were granted very extensive concessions and agreed to extend the Angevin succession to Louis' daughters as Louis also had no sons."  Done

   I'm still seeing a lot of repetition. For example, it says, "The tribe of the Polans...gave rise to an embryonic form of the Polish state...in the early part of the 10th century..." followed by, "A period of accelerated building...began in the first half of the 10th century." It would help to specify approximate dates rather than say early part/first half of the 10th century in the same paragraph.

   "The Polanie tribe conquered and merged with other Slavic tribes, formed a tribal federation and then a centralized state, which after the addition of Lesser Poland (the Vistulans) and Silesia (both taken by Mieszko from the Czech state during the later part of the 10th century) reached its mature form, including the main regions regarded as ethnically Polish". This is not easy to read. Done

   "In the aftermath of Mieszko's 967 victory over a force of the Velunzani led by Wichmann the first missionary bishop was appointed, which counteracted the intended eastern expansion of the Magdeburg Archdiocese, established at about the same time." Missing necessary punctuation. Done

   "The 14th century unified Kingdom of Poland of the last two rulers of the Piast dynasty, Władysław the Elbow-high and his son Casimir the Great, wasn't quite a return of the Polish state from before the fragmentation." Another wordy mouthful that doesn't read very well nor impart the meaning it intends to portray. Done

   "Despite the territorial truncation". This is sourced to Norman Davies. I assume that the wording "territorial truncation" is yours and yours alone and is not a direct quote? Done

   "Václav III soon being murdered, Władysław Łokietek took over Lesser Poland and the lands north of there..." Does this mean "After Václav III was murdered", Władysław Łokietek took over? Or does it mean Václav III was murdered after Władysław Łokietek took over? Done

   "Intensive activity of accelerated building of fortified settlements and territorial expansion took place around 920-950." It does not seem necessary to say "intensive activity" here, as accelerated building and territorial expansion implies it.  Done

   Some of the sentences still appear out of nowhere with little connection to the one before or after. For example: "Initially a pagan, Mieszko I was the first ruler of the Polans tribal union known from contemporary written sources; Mieszko was one of four Slavic "kings" reported by Ibrâhîm ibn Ya`qûb, a Jewish traveler." The two sentences do not work well together, but an effort could be made to make the connection clear and flow better. It's very important to avoid adding factoid after factoid, and to focus more on telling the story to the reader, as if they knew nothing about the topic. For his reason, it is important to hold their hand and fill in the dots, making sure to maintain a thread throughout the prose.  Done

   It is very distracting to keep reading "around" preceding each date. It is sufficient to merely state "all dates are approximate" in a footnote or to use "ca."  Done

   "In mid 13th century, Bolesław II the Bald granted Lubusz Land to the Margraviate of Brandenburg, which made possible the creation of the Neumark and had far reaching negative consequences for the integrity of the western border. Western Farther Pomerania broke its political ties with Poland in the second half of the 12th century and from 1231 became a fief of the Margraviate, which in 1307 extended its Pomeranian possessions even further east. Pomerelia or Gdańsk Pomerania had been independent of the Polish dukes from 1227." The backwards chronology isn't very clear. Why are we going from mid 13th century to 1227?  Done

   "Bolesław Chrobry (ruled 992–1025) started by continuing his father's policy of alliance with the Holy Roman Empire." One is forced to ask, started what? His reign?

   "Early Medieval Poland was developing culturally as a part of the European Christendom..." Why?  Done

   "...with the Polans settling in the flatlands around Giecz, Poznań, Gniezno and Ostrów Lednicki." I would like to see this qualified as either towns, villages, cities, or just settlements. Many readers won't know what these things are.  Done

   "a complex arrangement intended to preserve the state's unity, in practice ushered in a long period of fragmentation." That does not make sense. Please rewrite.  Done

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   References are limited in use, with the vast majority of the article cited to only a few sources. Chwalba, Pleszczyński, Wyrozumski, Zawadzki, Kurnatowska and others lack publication dates. and the article would be much better off with parenthetical referencing in the footnotes, rather than repeating the same citation info over and over again.  Done

   References are not consistent. Some lead with title, others with author name. For example, Davies.

   I notice you are using the author attribution of "by" in the references. AFAIK, that is not standard convention for citations. First, last or last, first is fine.  Done

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Should the short article on Kingdom of Poland (1025–1385) be merged (redirected) to this one?

   In the introductory paragraphs of the Mieszko I section, there is no direct mention of the Wislanie (Vistulans) tribe and their fate. In the article on Lesser Poland#Early period and Kingdom of Poland, it says: "In the first years of Polish statehood, southern Lesser Poland was inhabited by the Slavic tribe of Vistulans, with two major centers in Kraków and Wiślica. Their land, which had probably been part of Great Moravia, and Bohemia, was annexed by Mieszko I some time in late 10th century. Cosmas of Prague in his Chronicle of Bohemians wrote: 'Polish prince Mieszko, a cunning man, seized by ruse the city of Kraków, killing with sword all Czechs he found there'."  Done

   Why does Jan Rybicki say the Piast dynasty was founded in the Polanian realm c. 850?[1] Is this more legend than history, hence the exclusion?  Done

   EB says Mieszko I was "probably the fourth prince of the Piast line". Again, more legend than history?

   Why no mention or link to the Silesian Piasts?  Done

1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Look fine so far. Some wording could be argued by a reviewer as purple prose or peacock, but I think it is appropriate in context. For example, you say there are "many magnificent churches representing the Polish Gothic style"; one would find that this is an historically accurate statement if one consulted an art historian or expert on architecture.  Done

1. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

2. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

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

   Images look good, but tend to bleed into first and second level sections. My understanding is that this comes down to user preference, so I won't be changing it.  Done

3. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Prose still needs copyediting for issues listed above (and others like it). I can help, but it's not quite there yet. Viriditas (talk) 11:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

   Passed as of 00:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC). I would encourage the nominator to continue doing research and adding more sources to the article. With the addition of more sources, it may be a good idea to restructure the article along the lines of the most significant historical developments of the era, and draw a tighter thread between each section for the general reader, forming more of a narrative structure. It is difficult for the reader to come away from this article with a conclusion about the subject that is carried over from the dense forest of facts and figures. Viriditas (talk) 00:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Is the review close to being wrapped up? It's currently the lone GA left from August, so hopefully the review can be finalized soon. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

A few more days, I think. Viriditas (talk) 10:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm planning on closing this out in the next 8 hours. Viriditas (talk) 03:58, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I was too optimistic. The prose still needs work. Maybe another day will do it. Viriditas (talk) 11:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Kingdom of Poland (1025–1385) article I think should be merged to the Kingdom of Poland article, which provides an overview of the historic entities referred to as the Kingdom of Poland.

I added the Vistulans name and their takeover is mentioned. Described in more detail in Poland in the Early Middle Ages article. In the past the Polans state was thought to have originated in the 9th century, but modern archaeology placed the developments there squarely within the 10th century. Chronicler Gallus Anonymus gives names of several Piast predecessors of Mieszko I, which has been regarded either as historic record, or a dynastic legend, or a combination of both.

The bleeding of images results from the fact that the sections I produced for this article are too short to contain the images. The images included I think are essential, there are not too many available for the period discussed.

Orczar (talk) 16:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I found one reference lacking the publication date and I fixed it. Of the publication dates mentioned as missing, Chwalba info is under #3, Pleszczyński 4, Wyrozumski 1 and 8, Zawadzki 7 and Kurnatowska 4. When successive references come from the same book, where different authors wrote different chapters (e.g. Kurnatowska), the detailed book reference is given after the book's first use, to avoid unnecessary repetition. The same citation is repeated (a,b, ...) when two or more paragraphs in this article come from the same section of the book quoted.

Orczar (talk) 13:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The importance of the Western Latin Rite is stated in paragraph 1, fragmentation explained in paragraph 3

Orczar (talk) 14:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)