# Talk:Stańczyk (painting)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Stańczyk (painting)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) 20:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

" In any measure, consensus among modern scholars is that such a person indeed existed and even if he did not, the figure had a tremendous importance to Polish culture of later centuries, appearing in the works of numerous artists." Later centuries, tremendous importance in 21st century? I only count 20th century since. maybe change to later had tremendous importance. Can you provide some examples?
I have added two ref'ed examples, for the 20th century, there's Wyspiański play from 1901 (I added date) already mentioned later. Aaarg, 99% of sources are Polish and thus not visible on Google Books; I'd really like to check Krzyżanowski's book, for example. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:15, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
(most notably, besides the painting discussed here, in Consecration of King Sigismund's Bell and Prussian Homage)  Dates in brackets of those paintings?
Added. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:15, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
This painting was acquired by the Warsaw National Museum in 1924.[2] During World War II it was looted by the Nazis.[6] It was subsequently seized by the Soviet Union and returned to Poland around 1956.[8] -Please also put this info in the lead, it's important.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 20:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Done. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:15, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Ref 6  has a peculiar = in it, can you fix?. Also some of the dates are written in text other in digits, I'd rather they were in text and consistent. I'd also prefer that you list the authors by surname first, I think this is more common.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 14:50, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Fixed ref 6. Not sure what you mean about the dates, I see them all as similar (centuries, years). What am I missing? I am not sure how to make cite templates link the authors by surname, and since most the time I see first second order, I prefer not to mess up the metadata. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 
B. MoS compliance: 
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 
B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 
C. No original research: 
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 
B. Focused: 
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 
B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Yup, looks fine for GA now.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 20:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Great article, but it would help if it explained why the fall of Smolensk is so troubling to the man. I gather from the article that they won a battle and are celebrating it, yet only the jester "sees the significance" of the fall of Smolensk. What is this "significance"? Is he sad just because it was a grand city and it fell, and no-one is mourning for it, or is there some greater impact he foresees, like this loss ultimately means that Poland will loose the war, and only the jester is wise enough to know this. This might be be obvious to a student of Polish history, but to me, it's just mystifying. AnnaGoFast (talk) 21:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, especially in light of the fact that Stanczyk was Polish, and Smolensk was a Lithuanian city. The sentence "On the table lies a letter likely announcing that the Grand Duchy of Lithuania has lost Smolensk (now in Russia) to the Grand Duchy of Moscow, causing Stańczyk's sorrow and reflection on his fatherland's fate" are puzzle.
Maybe they mean that Stanczyk knows that Poland relied on its alliance with Lithuania to defend them both from Russia. The Wikipedia page on Queen Bono says she was Queen of Poland and Grand Duchess of Lithuania, so I guess they were both her countries... but it's still very unclear what Stanczyk's view is. Philgoetz (talk) 04:25, 14 April 2022 (UTC) Philgoetz (talk) 04:31, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the window portion of the painting close up, there isn't any three-star grouping visible there that even remotely resembles Orion's belt. 
And I also can't seem to find any outside source for this claim. Which makes it look like "personal research" (and incorrect at that).
If this can't be verified, it should be removed. 2601:187:8080:83FB:80F:8B2B:1F8D:48AB (talk) 05:23, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I think you mean Original Research, but yes, there doesn't seem to be any source supporting that assertion. As a stopgap measure I've added a "citation needed" tag. Bus stop (talk) 07:09, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

The article says, "Completed in 1862, when Matejko was twenty four years old, it is one of his most famous works and the one that launched him to fame. ... Upon its creation, the painting did not gather much attention... Upon Matejko's rise to fame, the painting was rediscovered and applauded as a masterpiece."  If the painting was noticed only later, "upon Matejko's rise to fame", then it can in no way be said to be "the one that launched him to fame". Philgoetz (talk) 06:12, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

To repeat the earlier topic: there isn't actually any line of three stars in the night sky visible in this painting. The closest thing is a pair in a line. This assertion needs to be explained or else removed. CoyotesKenning (talk) 03:58, 7 November 2024 (UTC)