# Talk:Juliusz Słowacki

huch wrong wikipedia ;) .. please move it back!! ...Sicherlich 15:20, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

With the expanded and properly referenced biography, I think this article classifies for the C-class. My intend is to keep expanding and improving this article. Expect a B-class review from WP:POLAND in the near future, and a GA nom afterward. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  00:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I've promoted the article to B Class. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Juliusz Słowacki/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 15:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.
Disambiguations: none found
Linkrot: none found Jezhotwells (talk) 15:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


### Checking against GA criteria
GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
The prose passes muster, but would be improved by copy-editing throughout to make it flow better.
The lead does not fully summarise the article, see WP:LEAD
The Life section would benefit from breaking down into subsections, e.g. Early life, Literary career, Later years
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
References are in a variety of formats. Consistency in citing is required. Linking to book titles in Google books is not very helpful, unless there is a link to the exact page available. Full publisher, author and date details are missing from some cites. Some foreign language references are missing the language parameter.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

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): 
Captioned and licensed.
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
On hold for seven days for issues above to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
OK, I think this passes muster now. I am happy to list it. Congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 18:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The article has already went through a prose improving copy-editing by Nihil Novi. I don't have any other editor to ask...
I've expanded lead, I hope it is sufficient now.
I added theree logical subsections to bio.
References should be consistent, I used [1] for most books; the few that didn't (from pl wiki mostly) should be now in the same format. Cite book doesn't seem to support page urls, only book urls, so this format seems to be the one possible. It should be consistent now for all the books, and all the elinks should be consistent as well. I added the missing language templates, let me know what else can be fixed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  17:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Juliusz Słowacki. 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/20110927210720/http://www.magwil.lt/archiwum/2007/mag-8/sp-7.htm to http://www.magwil.lt/archiwum/2007/mag-8/sp-7.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090918054601/http://www.lodz.ap.gov.pl/parki2.php to http://www.lodz.ap.gov.pl/parki2.php
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100922130254/http://www.wroclaw.ivc.pl/zabytki/pomnik-slowackiego/index.html to http://www.wroclaw.ivc.pl/zabytki/pomnik-slowackiego/index.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120928063018/http://www.culture.pl/kalendarz-pelna-tresc/-/eo_event_asset_publisher/L6vx/content/otwarcie-muzeum-juliusza-slowackiego-w-krzemiencu to http://www.culture.pl/kalendarz-pelna-tresc/-/eo_event_asset_publisher/L6vx/content/otwarcie-muzeum-juliusza-slowackiego-w-krzemiencu
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) 03:16, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

from Wikipedia:Correct typos in one click
genesic->genesis? context: 
~~~  four periods: Wolter's circle (pseudoclassicism), Christian ethic, Towiański's ethic and genesic  
genesic ethic.<ref>Włodzimierz Szturc (1997), ''O obrotach sfer romantycznych. Studia o ideach i wyobraźni'', Homini, By ~~~

Hi there. “Wilno” versus “Vilnius” in Juliusz Słowacki’s biography. I reverted that edit because according to Wikipedia policy (WP:NCPLACE) we should be using the historical place name appropriate to the time of the event. In 1809, when Słowacki was born, the city was known as Wilno and was part of the Vilna Governorate of the Russian Empire. Reliable historical sources use this form.
To make it clear for modern readers, the format Wilno (now Vilnius, Lithuania) is standard on Wikipedia. ForestaSector (talk) 21:15, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

@ForestaSector: A good rule of thumb is to use modern, commonly accepted English place names, unless doing so would confuse or mislead the reader (for example, calling Königsberg “Kaliningrad” in a 17th-century context). As for Wilno, Vilna, Wilna, or Vilnius, there’s not much difference between these names, so there’s no point wasting time arguing over which one to use. Especially in reference to 1809, when this Lithuanian, mostly Polish-speaking town was under Russian rule. Cheers. Marcelus (talk) 21:53, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
@Marcelus: Thank you for your comment. I agree that in many cases using the modern, commonly accepted English form makes sense but in this instance WP:NCPLACE specifically says:
When describing historical events, the name of a place should generally be the one used at the time of the event.
As you noted yourself, in 1809 the city was a predominantly Polish speaking town under the Russian Empire and was widely known in both Polish and contemporary European sources as Wilno (or Wilna in some English texts). Using Wilno (now Vilnius, Lithuania) therefore follows the guideline precisely and it gives the historically accurate name while still helping modern readers recognize the location.
This is the same approach used in other Polish biographical articles from the same period (for example, Adam Mickiewicz "Adam Mickiewicz was born on 24 December 1798, either at his paternal uncle's estate in Zaosie (now Zavosse)) For consistency and historical accuracy, I think keeping Wilno (now Vilnius, Lithuania) would best align with Wikipedia naming conventions and sourcing practices. ForestaSector (talk) 02:31, 5 November 2025 (UTC)