# Talk:History of Poland during the Jagiellonian dynasty

During the B-class review for WikiProject Poland, I determined that the article seems to me to meet the criteria for the B-class. A WP:GA nomination could be considered. Good job! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  17:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Poland during the Jagiellon dynasty/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Grandiose (me, talk, contribs)  19:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a good shout for GA. Will have a closer look soon. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs)  19:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Initially:
GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
Generally good, will have a look at one or two small things soon. Layout needs some improvement, particularly the the "Culture of Polish Renaissance" section. At the moment it reads like a list of famous people from the period; ideally it needs some sort of narrative to tie it together. Perhaps sections on each discipline, with statements generally (eg. the rural/urban one) grouped into another? As a result of this, paragraphs in this section are too short. Overall, within each of the two major sections, there seems to be a mix of temporally grouped subsections and issue-gruped subsjections; I think it might be best to deal with military achievements in a section (on the same level as "cultural", for example) and then individual campaigns with it,
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
I'm going to go ahead an alter the citation style slightly, since the constant repetition of the names in both English and Polish of just a couple of works are not only unnecessary, but also detract from the usability of the section, with other references being overshadowed.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
Coverage is good. I'm no expert on this period of Polish history specifically, but the list of military campaigns seems to be sufficient for this time period. If you think yourself that campaigns/wars have been overlooked, I suggest you bring them into the article now, I shall AGF.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
I'm going to check soon. No obvious areas, but it's quite easy to copy the history-is-written-by-the-victors mantle, and with two Polish sources making up the mainstay of the article, it's only right I should check this one out thoroughly.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 
Absolutely not.
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): 
I'll check the statuses of the images shortly. Caption-wise, mostly fine, but one or two ("Rzeczpospolita in 1569; the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, having lost lands to the Russian state and to Lithuania's partner Poland, is much smaller than a hundred years earlier") verge on text that should be in the article and not the caption, for example. "Stanisław Orzechowski, a szlachta ideologist, wrote in 1564 Quincunx, the Conception of the Polish Crown, in which he expounded principles of a state identified with its nobility" could be phrased better to relate more directly to the image. I'm also not sure that absolutely all the images add sufficiently to the article (I will think about this further) and/or are in the right place. At the moment we've got images left, right and center (well, not center!) which isn't preferable per se - the question of whether it's justified (as well it might) is always worth asking.
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
Thus on hold, partly on my count, partly on the article's. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs)  20:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


### Further comments
OK, Ive addressed most areas now. The article could do with a copyedit generally - but the overall level is sufficient for a GA as it stands. I'm going to be bold and play around with the images myself; that leaves the structuring issues to sort out. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs)  21:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

In addition the one citation needed tag and the captions on one or two to sort out. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs)  21:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
OK, in summary I have a couple of "blocking" issues:
The "Culture of Polish Renaissance" section is too broken up, with its short paragraphs, and lack of text that describes multiple people, or provides a narrative (the spirit of WP:LAYOUT: "The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized, since they can inhibit the flow of the text");
Excessive use of images. As with MOS:Images's "Avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other.", the large number of images in this article distracts the reader from the text too much. As that MOS page notes, images should be left-aligned where possible, with the indication that it should be possible in most instances. There are, for example, a few shots of places (e.g. File:Gdańsk - Ratusz Głównego Miasta (by Sfu).jpg) which aren't referenced within the main text, and whose purpose is unclear. Are they demonstrating an architectural style? Are these buildings special in themselves (judging by the linked articles, likely the latter) but this isn't made clear. Might it be worth addressing a few key buildings in the text? Since they have articles (with pictures) the link should be sufficient to allow people to get more detail.
I also believe that File:Odprawa.jpg is directly superfluous. Jan Kochanowski is linked in the text, and I don't really think the reader gains by being able to see the title page of his play;
The locations of one or two images need improving. People with screen readers, as well as most people, get confused if images relating to one paragraph are placed next to another, or if images seem to bear little relation to neighbouring text. This needs to be addressed after the above points. It's not that bad at the moment, falling within MOS guidelines ("Images should be inside the major section containing the content to which they relate (within the section defined by the most recent level 2 heading") but still poses a problem because of factors specific to this article, the large number of images, and the majority use of section 3 headers and not section 2 (not a problem in itself, I should point out).
I hope that clears up what needs doing. (Everything else above is merely a suggestion). I can't make too many of these edits myself, lest I lose my neutrality and you have to get a third opinion.Grandiose (me, talk, contribs)  19:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


### Recommended improvements
I worked on the recommended improvements to the article, removed some images, changed locations and captions of others, provided the missing reference. Added structure and content to the Renaissance culture section. The short paragraphs correspond to the content segments of this survey; only a couple are one sentence long. I didn't do much description of "multiple people" here, as Renaissance creativity was the activity of intellectual elites and individuals, in Poland and elsewhere. The multitudes tended their crops and fought wars, and those issues are dealt with in other parts of the article. Orczar (talk) 02:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
That's good enough. Most of the "people" section is written in very strong terms: "exemplifies Renaissance versatility"; " greatest theorists of political thought in Renaissance Europe", "Kochanowski's multifaceted creative output is remarkable for both the depth of thoughts and feelings that he shares with the reader, and for its beauty and classic perfection of form." very high praise etc. etc. Is this justified by the refs? Is it justified by other references? I can't think we should go quite as far. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs)  16:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Copernicus, Modrzewski and Kochanowski are the three "giants" and these characterizations are justified by the sources. Of course it can be phrased differently.Orczar (talk) 21:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


### GA
Passed - all requirements met (we mustn't falsely believe GA to be higher than it is). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs)  16:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I think this should be under History of Poland during the Jagiellon dynasty. After all, this is a history article, it doesn't describe society, economy, geography or other topics... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  04:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I changed the names for this and the Piast history articles as requested. "I am working" on the reviewer's recommendations for Jagiellon Poland, just haven't had much time lately.Orczar (talk) 15:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, the title seems better now. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  19:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on History of Poland during the Jagiellonian dynasty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090118152434/http://www.strangelove.net/~kieser/Russia/foreigninteractionC.html to http://www.strangelove.net/~kieser/Russia/foreigninteractionC.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:54, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

See:

First Polish Republic
Second Polish Republic
French Fourth Republic
French Fifth Republic
Similarily, articles History of Poland (1918-1939), History of Poland (1939-1945), History of Poland (1945-1989) etc. should be moved into articles named: Poland in the Interwar period, Poland in WW2, Poland in the Cold War etc. or perhaps one big "Poland in the 20th century" article should be created along with one for the Third Polish Republic, describing the current regime, how it formed etc. See: France in the 20th century. History of Poland during the Jagiellonian dynasty should either be merged with History of Poland during the Piast dynasty as "Poland in the Middle Ages" or "Medieval Poland" OR moved to Jagiellonian Poland/Poland under the Jagiellons

79.191.227.130 (talk) 07:58, 26 November 2023 (UTC)