Talk:Władysław IV Vasa/Archives/2011/December

King Vladislaus or Wladislaus (never Ladislaus)

The king name was Władysław in Polish and was also spelled: Wladislaus (early Latinized version) or Vladislaus (late Latin and English version), never Ladislaus. This shoud be corrected. Below is a sample of original documents sign by the Vladislaus kings. Althout the form Wladislaus was used more often, in my opinion Vladislaus is much better here, beacuse it is more modern version and more English. Vladislaus Rex 00:33, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

King Vladislaus I the Short (Władysław I Łokietek)

• 27.02.1298: Wladislaus Dei gracia, dux Regni Polonie et dominus Pomerania, Cuiavie, Lancicie as Siradie
• 7.03.1298: Wladislaus ...
• 1.09.1999: Wladislaus ...

King Vladislaus II Jagiello (Władysław II Jagiełło)

• 3.05.1386: Wladislaus Dei gracia rex Polonie Litwanieque princeps supremus et heres Russie etc.
• 30.09.1388: Wladislaus Dei gracia rex Polonie necnon terrarum Cracouie, Sandomirie, Syradia, Lancicie, Cuiauie, Lithuanie princeps supremus, Pomoranie Russieque dominus et heres etc.
• 22.04.1389: Wladislaus ...
• 28.01.1392: Wladislaus ...
• 10.05.1394: Wladislaus ...
• 11.04.1409: Wlodislaus (sic! with o) ...
• 12.12.1410: Wladislaus ...
• 17.07.1416: Wladislaus ...
• 6.09.1422: Wladislavs (sic! with v)...
• 24.06.1425: Wladislaus ...

King Vladislaus III of Varna (Władysław III Warneńczyk)

• 21.12.1436: Wladislaus Dei gratia rex Polonie Lithwanieque princeps supremus et heres Russie
• 16.12.1438: Wladislaus Tercius Dei gracia rex Polonie necnon terrarum Cracouie, Sandomirie, Syradie, Lancicie, Cuiauie, Lithwanieque princeps supremus, Pomeranie Russie dominus et heres et cetera
• 5.03.1440: Wladislaus Tercius ...
• 5.03.1440: Wladislaus Tercius ...
• 11.06.1443: Wladislaus Dei gracia Hungarie, Polonie, Dalmacie, Croacie etc. rex Litwanieque princes supremus et heres Russie etc.
• 11.06.1443: Wladislaus ...
• 17.04.1444: Wladislaus ...
• 19.04.1444: Wladislaus Dei gracia Polonie, Hungarie, Dalmacie, Croacie etc. rex Lithwaniaque princeps supremus et heres Russie etc.
• 18.08.1444: Wladislaus Dei gracia Polonie, Hungarie, Dalmacie, Croacie etc. tex necnon terrarum Cracouie, Samdomirie, Syradie, Lancicie, Cuyauie, Lithwanie princeps supremus, Pomeranie, Russieque dominus et heres etc.
• 18.08.1444: Wladislaus ...
• 27.08.1444: Wladislaus

King Vladislaus IV Vasa (Władysław IV Waza)

• 20.02.1633: Vladislaus Quartus Dei gratia rex Poloniae, magnus dux Lithuaniae, Russiae, Prussiae, Masoviae, Samogitiae, Livoniaeque, necnon Suecorum, Gothorum Vandalorumque haereditarius rex, electus magnus dux Moschoviae
• 12.03.1633: Wladislaus Quartus ...
• 14.08.1634: Vladislaus Quartus ...
• 17.03.1637: Vladislaus Quartus ...
• 24.03.1637: Vladislaus Quartus ...
• 7.05.1638: Vladislaus IV ...
• 30.09.1641: Vladislaus Quartus ...
• 24.03.1646: Vladislaus Quartus ...
• 16.05.1646: Vladislaus Quartus ...
• 16.05.1646: Vladislaus Quartus ...
• 1.09.1647: Vladislaus Quartus ...

Tsar isue

This User:Emax is constantly reverting my edits and isn't even making sense. Russia couldn't have had two tsars at the same time, and as a matter of fact, I believe he just technically ruled briefly, whether it was official or not. Marcus2 00:28, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

So why do you not change Michael_I_of_Russia if you are the opinion that its not possible that Russia had two tsars? Official he reign until 1635 (irrelevant how)--Emax 00:55, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, there was an exception to the rule. Ivan V and Peter I were joint tsars, but they were half-brothers, and as I recall, Wladislaus IV reigned briefly, even though not officially for a while to the Polish monarchy. Marcus2 02:26, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Look what a mess you made (points below). You two should be ashamed of yourself. Wladislaw was always a titular tsar, and had no real power. But he did retain the insignia and used the title until 1635. I admit I haven't noticed the 'reign in Russia' tab in the biobox. I'd suggest deleting in completly or changing the text to read 1610-1635 (nominal) - it is extremly confusing to see his 'Russian reign' compared to Polish one, and the matter is sufficiently explained in the article text. Please vote (or suggest your version) here. I want to get rid of the protected status ASAP. While we are dealing with this, take a look at the tsar template below, and consider how we may apply the changes from compromise at the Michael I of Russia and Vasili IV of Russia. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:30, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

::Nie widze powodu by cos zmieniac w tabelce, tekst artykulu wyraznie mowi ze rzadzil "with no real power", dolna tabelka rowniez to potwierdza, wiec po co w paru miejscach pisac to samo? Druga sprawa, "tytularnym" to on byl krolem Szwedow, Gotow i Wandalow a nie Carem. Zostal wybrany i do 1635 trzymal tytul, wiec oficajlnie byl caly czas Carem (niema znaczenia czy rzeczywiscie rzadzil, czy nie - o tym mowi artykul). Ten ostatni kompromis z tym "titular", wcale nie byl dobrym - i tak na marginesie, jak na encyklopedie bardzo mylacym - rozwiazaniem. Wybrany prezydent ktory cala swoja kadecje przelezy w szpitalu - nadal bedzie prezydentem, chodz zadnej wladzy nie wykonywal (i w takim przypadku artykul o tym opowiada, a nie tabelka ktora przedstawia tylko podstawowe fakty w skrocie)--Emax 21:00, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

Note: please keep to English. I can understand you, but majority of other discutants may not. True, his tsar title was not the same as his 'King of Sweden' title, but neither was it the same as his 'King of PLC' title, was it? At the very least we should add some kind of note. While as I wrote, won't mind if some kind of note that he was a tsar stays in the biobox, it cannot look - from battlebox - as his tsar reign was the same as his PLC reign. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:30, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

::::Wlasnie o to chodzi ze byl takim samym carem jak krolem Polski (nawet to ze w Polsce i w Rosji zostal wybrany na wladce) - roznica polega na tym, ze praktycznie nie wykonywal wladzy w Rosji, a w Polsce to robil. I o tym mowi juz artykul bardzo wyraznie. Troche mi sie nie chce tu kaleczyc z moja angielszczyzna :), bo problem wyglada na "a mnie sie nie podoba ze polski krol byl carem". Oficjalnie byl carem, oficjalnie rzadzil w Rosji do 1635, nieoficjalnie nie mial tam praktycznie wladzy. Tabelka podaje informacje w skrocie, a artykul wyraznie juz mowi ze nie mial tam praktycznie wladzy - a tym co sie nie podoba ze byl carem, musza z tym zyc ;) --Emax 14:25, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

:::::A może po prostu usunąć tą całą tabelkę? Sprawa jest skomplikowana i jedna linijka w tabelce po prostu nie będzie w stanie jej wyjaśnić. To chyba jedyne rozwiązanie, bo Emax przecież zdania nie zmieni :).

:::::A tabelka wcale nie jest niezbędna. Przykład: James II of England. Z nim podobna sytuacja: prawowity król Anglii od 1685, zdjęty z tronu i wygnany do Francji w 1688, uważał się za króla do śmierci w 1701.

Short translation: since the chances of convincing Emax are low (based on previous experience), the only reasonable solution seems to be getting rid of the table altogether. Tables are not a necessity: see James II of England. Balcer 09:30, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Or meaby you should just call 172 for help like on Anti-Polonism?...(niektorzy z diablem podpisza pakt by przeforsowac swoja opinie i zaszkodzic innym, wstyd, wstyd...)--Emax 13:37, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

This gem by Emax deserves translation. Emax writes (niektorzy z diablem podpisza pakt by przeforsowac swoja opinie i zaszkodzic innym, wstyd, wstyd...) which means (some will sign a pact with the devil to push through their opinion and harm others, shame, shame ...). So, for the record, Emax considers 172 to be the devil :). What did 172 do to deserve this?. Balcer 16:41, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

::::::::Targowica confederation :) (fajnie kablujesz, moze przetlumaczysz jeszcze to zdanie w ktorym pisze ze kablujesz? nie ladnie, nie ladnie... Piszesz po polsku, masz nick (prawie) polski, ale Polakiem to Ty chyba nie jestes) ;)--Emax 17:10, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

And btw, just for the record... pls dont claiming that "Emax considers 172 to be the devil" - i wrote you only a saying, that you should learn :)--Emax 17:24, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

A simple solution: we leave the 'Reign in Russia' table (btw, I am going to merge elected with reign, they are duplicates), but add a note¹ linking the paragraph explaining the tsar issure. I think this should be acceptable to everyone? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:30, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

THIS IS THE ENGLISH WIKIPEDIA

Protected

While we sort out the reverts, I'm protecting this page. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:08, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Are you guys sorted out now? Please tell me what the consensus was so I can unlock the page. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:20, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OK, no response in a while. I assume the parties have calmed down and will find a compromise. I'd suggest requesting for page protection again if the problem crops up again. Unprotecting. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:43, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This title is crazy

I've never seen this name as "Wladislaus". "Wladyslaw" would be okay with me, but "Wladislaus" is just weird. john k 03:30, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I'd also vote Wladyslaw. Still, see section first of this talk page, Talk:Ladislaus and also Guidelines for the spelling of names of Polish rulers before you decide to move this. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:54, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Revert war

I see a revert war going on between Witkacy and Voyevoda, mostly related to conversion of Orthodox. Could anyone elaborate a bit? What's the problem here? Halibutt 23:51, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

I am entirely in Witkacy's camp on this one. First, Voyevoda is reverting my edits including fixing some broken links. Second, he insist on adding the word 'violently' to convert, which is not factual: Sigismund wanted to convert Orthodox to Catholicism, but nowhere I read does it state he wanted to do it by force *only*. Besides, he never suceeded in this, as no signed agreement even allowed Catholic faith to be preached in Muscovy. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 10:34, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Delisted GA

References given do not appear to reference the entire article, I assume this based on the citation needed tag in the intro, and if part of the article summarizing the whole thing has no reference, how much more of it may not be referenced? Convert them to inline citations or something, or better yet, just add more, but this just isn't well-referenced. Homestarmy

The "citation-needed" tag was groundless. The information given is well-established fact. (It is supposed that Władysław's father wanted the Muscovite throne for himself.) logologist|Talk 05:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand inline citations are a must. I have Czaplinski's ref with me, and I will try to find some time to add inline cites in the future.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and try to summarize the failures section more if you can, it looks a bit big, maybe split it up into two sections or something. Homestarmy 19:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Revision of text required

Could the authors of this article please revise the text carefully for correct English grammar and usage?

As it stands, it is riddled with errors in syntax, particularly with regard to the usage of the definite and indefinite articles - and the omitted plural indefinite article - in English. It really is about time that speakers of Slavonic and East European languages who contribute to English Wikipaedia made an effort to get this right!

The problem is similarly evident in the discussion pages. Geoff Powers (talk) 15:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I am interested in this subject in general. Are their any guidelines? While of Course we appreciate the contributions of foreign users to en.WP, what do we do about the serious depreciation of our language which ensues, such as here and in hundreds if not thousands of other articles? Shouldn't en.WP have a special task force for this, since all nationalities of the world use - or try to use - English as an international language? The problems are not at all limited to "speakers of Slavonic and East European languages" but to any and all contributors and editors who do not have English as their main language. Many have much too high of an opinion of their skills, and we are partly to blame for travelling all over the world or receiving them at home and telling them "oh, your English is perfect". I am familiar with several Scandinavian editors, for example, who list themselves in good faith (?) as "near-native" or "advanced" contributors of English, though what they actually write discloses these claims as way off base. And I don't mean just typos (whicj I doo a lort uf). SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors (now inactive) and seemingly still active Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. I totally agree that we need more editors who can polish prose. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Princess?

Please see here! Thx! SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The "merger" that allegedly took place with a small illustrated article about an extramarital daughter of his was not a merger but an article deletion posing as a merger - the page was changed to a redirect and the information in the little article totally discarded. I see no reason why the extramarital daughter should not be mentioned in this king's bio, and there even seems to be room for that image. SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead and add whatever content you can. Worst case, it will just be removed :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

B-class review (failed)

I am failing this article as B-class for WP:POLAND. Problems are described above, such as not enough inline references. Hopefully I will get around to improving this article back to GA class this year; it has been on my "to do" list for a while. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Unreferenced content removed

I am moving some content I cannot find refs for here, with no prejudice for restoring it once refs are found.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

---

[with regards to Ottoman treaty around 1634]: shared joint suzerainty (a condominium) over Moldavia and Wallachia (Wołoszczyzna).

---

Władysław was married twice. At the very beginning of 1634, or even at the end of 1633 Władysław asked pope Urban VIII for permission (or better to say promise of permission, since no name was included) to marry a Protestant princess. The pope refused, which Władysław treated as insult. At the beginning of 1634 Władysław sent Aleksander Przypkowski with a secret mission to king of England Charles I. Envoy had to discuss king's marriage plans and English help for reconstruction of Polish fleet. King's marriage plans were discussed on Senate meeting on 19 March 1635, but only four bishops were present and only one supported plan.

---

At first Władysław did not want to have deeper relationships with Habsburgs. In 1633 promised equal treating of Protestants and orthodox and forced Albrycht Stanisław Radziwiłł (Catholic) to countersign decree threatened him with giving key posts in Commonwealth to Protestants. In 1633/35 nominated Krzysztof Radziwiłł (Calvinist) on the highest posts in country (wojewoda wileński (of Vilnius – capital of Lithuania), grand Lithuanian hetman). However after Protestant nobles blocked his attempt to wage a war against Protestant Sweden, in 1635 at the Armistice of Stuhmsdorf (Treaty of Sztumska Wieś), he renew his father's alliance with Habsburgs

---

However, when he was "cheated" during peace talks with Sweden in 1635 - by Polish magnates and nobles, many of them Protestant, by Protestant Swedes and by Protestant representatives of other foreign monarchs against a new war between the Commonwealth and Sweden, a war Władysław pushed for - Władysław changed his mind about marrying a Protestant and decided to seek support from the Catholic factions, especially the Habsburgs.

---

Another marriage briefly considered in 1636 was to Anna Wiśniowiecka, daughter of Michał Wiśniowiecki and sister of Jeremi Wiśniowiecki, of the powerful Polish magnate family of Wiśniowiecki. Although Władysław was quite supportive of the marriage, it was blocked by the Sejm. Anna eventually married Zbigniew Firlej between 1636 and 1638.

---

Many historians argue that Władysław was very ambitious and dreamed of achieving great fame through conquests, and in the latter years he planned to use the Cossacks to provoke the Turks into attacking Poland so that his military leadership would be indispensable. On various times he set his sights on regaining the Swedish crown, capturing the Russian throne and even conquering the entire Ottoman Empire. He was often able to convince the restless Cossacks to join his side, but with little support from the szlachta and foreign allies (like the Habsburgs), he constantly failed in those attempts, often resulting in unnecessary border wars and diluting the strength of the Commonwealth, which later proved fatal when the country was finally invaded by its neighbours.

A year after the death of his son, on the eve of the Khmelnytsky Uprising and The Deluge, events that marked the end of the Golden Era of the Commonwealth.. Władysław failed to realize his dreams of conquest and he did not reform the Commonwealth. The Cossacks, angered because Władysław's promises to them failed to materialize, were beginning their greatest revolt against Polish rule, which would be exploited by Swedish invasion.

---

In 1638 Władysław proposed that still not paid dowries of his mother and second wife of Zygmunt III would be protected by one of Silesian duchies (preferably opolsko-raciborskie (of Opole-Racibórz)). In 1642 proposed to give Habsburgs his rights to Swedish throne in exchange for giving him Silesia in deposit. Ludovico Fantoni, sent to Vienna in summer 1644 proposed to exchange Wladysław's incomes from Bohemian estates in Treben for opolsko-raciborskie and cieszyńskie (of Cieszyn (Teschen)) duchies. At the beginning of 1645, tired by constant stalling of Vienna's court, Władysław said to Emperor's envoy sent to Warsaw, Maximilian Dietrichstein, that Poland will cooperate with Sweden – it was an open threat (that he could take Silesia with Swedes help and against Emperor) pronounced by fact that on 6 March 1645 Swedish general Lennart Torstensson defeated Emperor's, Bavarian and Saxon forces in battle of Jankov and started march against Vienna. Now Emperor was again ready for discussion and sent Johannes Putz von Adlertum to Warsaw in April 1645 giving him wide prerogatives in transferring rights of duchy opolsko-raciborskie to son of Władysław and Cecylia Renata, Zygmunt Kazimierz as a hereditary fief. Negotiations eventually ended with Habsburgs success and Polish failure. Duchy was given not as a hereditary fief but 50 years long deposit and owner was required to swear allegiance to king of Bohemia (thus it could not be Polish king), but as an exempt Władysław would rule duchy until his son was an adult. Additionally Władysław promised to lend Emperor 1,100,000 złoty (minus still not paid three dowries).

---

In internal politics he attempted to strengthen the power of the monarchy, but this was mostly thwarted by the szlachta, who valued their independence and democratic powers. Wladyslaw suffered continuing difficulties caused by the efforts of the Polish Sejm (parliament) to check the King's power and limit his dynastic ambitions. The Szlachta viewed Vladislaus' military dreams as an attempt to strengthen his position during war and thus the Sejm strongly opposed the majority of his plans for war (for example, with Sweden in 1635 or Turks in 1646), and usually thwarted them by denying the funds for military campaigns and withholding its cosignature on the declaration of war. Similarly, Władysław's foreign ambitions came to little, as his attempts to mediate in the Thirty Year's War between the warring German and Scandinavian powers came to nothing, and his support for the Habsburgs brought him almost nothing in return.

Notes from B class review

Here are some comments I have from my review of the article:

1. "would" – In several places, especially when speaking of Władysław's childhood, the article uses "would" (He would be raised, he would fight against the Swedes, etc.). Change the verb tense to past tense (He was raised, he fought against the Swedes, etc.).
2. "Sigismund" and "Zygmunt" – Pick one name and use it throughout the article.
3. "Shein" – In the "Military campaigns" section, Shein is mentioned. Who is he?
4. "szlachta" – The word should be Wikilinked on its first use.
5. In the "Prince" section, the parenthetical remark that the Commonwealth had no navy should be moved to the end of the sentence, instead of the middle of the sentence.
6. The "Marriages" section needs some work. The second paragraph was confusing to me, and in general the section should be reviewed to improve the grammar. (As examples, "they have not proven successful" should be "they did not prove successful", "demanding that he dismisses the troops" should be "demanding that he dismiss the troops".)

I made a few very minor changes, and I promoted the article to B class. Nice work. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll certainly try to address the issues above before moving to GA! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Fixed all issues, but I find the para you mentioned rather clear; I am not sure what needs to be fixed there (other than the grammar issue you raised). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Władysław IV Vasa/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ajh1492 (talk) 12:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Review in progress

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   see below

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. 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):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   neu

DAB Links to fix on ..

Kopek

Pike

Polish-Swedish War (1600-1629) (redirect page)

Polish–Swedish War (1600–1629)

Richelieu

Sheaf

I agree with the following comments from the review tool ...

• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
• Avoid including galleries in articles, as per Wikipedia:Galleries. Common solutions to this problem include moving the gallery to wikicommons or integrating images with the text.^[?]
• This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, then an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.^[?]
• Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honor (A) (British: honour), organize (A) (British: organise), recognize (A) (British: recognise), realize (A) (British: realise), criticize (A) (British: criticise), isation (B) (American: ization), traveled (A) (British: travelled), travelled (B) (American: traveled), skillful (A) (British: skilful), curb (A) (British: kerb), program (A) (British: programme).
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
• The script has spotted the following contractions: wasn't, didn't, couldn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.

Ajh1492 (talk) 15:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Fixed most. Sheaf seems to me a correct link, PSW need to be turned into an article. I don't see any linked dates, "vague terms of size", nor A/B spelling problems; the script would be much more useful if it were to actually list potential words to check.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Does the reviewer have any further issues to note? Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I guess we will know soon: [1]. But if not, I'd appreciate another reviewer stepping in. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 15:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

One more look to make sure I didn't miss anything. Ajh1492 (talk) 15:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• A couple more observations ...

any additional details on "He was also heir to one of several Christian claims to the title of King of Jerusalem"?

a bit of an opinion in the following statement . . . "Likely, the failure of this campaign showed Władysław the limits of royal power in Poland, as major factors for the failure included significant autonomy of the military commanders"

Lede needs to better summarize the article - one interesting fact left out is his founding of the PLC Navy.

Ajh1492 (talk) 15:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• Removed the Jerusalem claim, I couldn't find any refers for it (meant to do it before, good catch).
• True, but it is a cited opinion.
• True, but PLC navy was minor and didn't last long. Will add the link to it to the lead, why not - but I am not sure what else is missing there. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Since everything checks out now on the reviewer's end, I'll go ahead and pass the article. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:43, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

King of Jerusalem

I removed the following claim, as I cannot find any refs for it: "He was also heir to one of several Christian claims to the title of King of Jerusalem, though the Kingdom of Jerusalem had been defunct for several centuries." --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)