# Talk:Stanisław Egbert Koźmian

@Amitchell125: Nice job! PS. I'll also ping User:Nihil novi who may be interested in this topic.

I detect inconsistency when it cmes to reporting the titles of his worsk. "Spy" is named only in English, while "Śpiew wojenny" and "Dzieła dramatyczne Williama Shakespeare'a", in Polish (I'd likewise translate the title of the Polish magazine, Dziennik Gwardii Honorowej). I recommend reporting both English and Polish names upon their first mention. This is already done with this work: Poznań Review (Przegląd Poznański). FYI the title of Spy in Polish is Szpieg. Also, some are reported in italics while other in "". This needs further standardization.
Inconsistencies tackled, let me know if I missed any. Amitchell125 (talk) 10:34, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
I am not convinced this text needs the quotation from "Śpiew wojenny", it appears not relevant here, IMHO
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 10:37, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
" he was forced to leave the country" -> was he forced (sentenced to exile) or chose the exile voluntarily (arguably to avoid being sentenced to something worse, but this should be clarified). If we are unsure, we could just say he left the country, without saying he was forced (by whom/how? the reader may want to know).
Text amended. Amitchell125 (talk) 10:46, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
"he promoted Poland's cause in Parliament." -> do we know the date? Did he give a speech, or did he appear before some commission, etc.?
"The following year he obtained permission from the Prussian authorities to enter the country for 10 days" -> we don't say he needed permission for other countries. This is relevant probably because Prussia was one of Poland's partitioners, but right now this sentence stands out as odd. Can it be expanded with context, and likely, a link to the Prussian partition?
Partly done, I'll add a note to explain the context, to avoid the text being off-topic. Amitchell125 (talk) 10:09, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Done now. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:10, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
" Frédéric Chopin, whom he had known at school" -> which school?
The Lyceum. Text amended. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:48, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
"Koźmian returned to Poland in 1849" -> does it mean his sentence was commuted? Why didn't he return earlier?
Sentence amended. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:18, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Regarding this sentence. Poland presumably should be changed to Congress Poland, unless this term is linked before (if so, I missed it)? It may be a good idea to add this term (and link) earlier, perhaps, when the November Uprising is first mentioned? However, the later text mentions he mostly lived in Poznań. That would be the Grand Duchy of Posen - but only up to 1848. And he returned there in 1849. Then, this would be Province of Posen. Saying "he returned to Poland" is not very apt, those arguably were Polish territories, but it was Kingdom of Prussia's territory, not "Poland" (which more or less didn't exist in that century at all). And to add one more issue: the heading uses the term "Wielkopolska", not Poland. Setting aside we use "Greater Poland" in English (see redirect), this term should be used and linked in the body. After thinking about this I'd suggest something like "Koźmian returned to Polish lands, the Greater Poland region, then Province of Posen in the Kingdom of Prussia, in 1849". As for the heading, maybe we could use "Return to Poland" there instead.
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:37, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
"and was for a period of time the president of the society" -> do we know the exact dates for this?
Dates added. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:10, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
"Koźmian was a follower of Krasiński, two of whose books (The Day of To-Day and The Last One) first appeared under his name, as the author would not otherwise have published them" -> this takes us to our discussion of the Anonymous Poet :) As some noted, ZK published some works under his friends names; this seems to be the case here. An elaboration might be in order (telling the reader why this was the case, maybe in a form of a footnote based on text at ZK); additionally, this is unclear: "as the author would not otherwise have published them" - presumably ZK would publish them anonymously or under another name? It seems strange ZK would insist on using SEK's name (or not publishing those works at all). Also, said works need Polish titles.
The Day of To-Day and The Last One are by Krasinski, not Koźmian. Text amended to make this clearer. Polish titles have been added. I haven't yet found much about why works were published anonymously, let me know if you come across anything. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:47, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Amitchell125, Well, this is covered in Krasiński's article - he published everything, or almost everything, anonymously, due to not wanting to cause trouble for himself and his family (since his writings were pro-Polish cause, which of course wasn't welcomed by the occupying powers). In any case, I see the 1910 source itself uses the phrase "as the author would not otherwise have published them". It is public domain, but per my argument above it is not very clear, and arguably misleading - I think Krasiński would publish them anyway, under a different penname or without one. I'd suggest removing this sentence. (I'll see if I can find out anything more about this particular case to clarify this further, but for now I think this half-sentence is arguably wrong as it suggests that if Koźmian were not to agree to Krasiński's request, those two works would never see the light of the day). I suggest instead using sources from Krasiński to add a brief explanation that Krasiński was in a habit of publishing anonymously or other other people's names to avoid causing trouble for himself and his own family with the authorities, due to the themes of his works which were not always approved by said authorities. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:02, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
"Shakespeare was first translated into Polish in 1837" - I find this paragraph a bit confusing, as it doesn't clearly tell us how or whether Koźmian became involved in this project. It starts by mentioning other people, and in the middle it mentions Koźmian without introducing his involvement. Please rewrite and/or expand.
More information added. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:08, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
"which formed the basis of the first complete edition of Shakespeare's plays in 1875" - presumably, the first complete edition in Polish? Please clarify
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:15, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
"The 12-volume publication" - that refers to the 1830 edition or the 1875 one? Please clarify
The 1875 edition, now clarified. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:44, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
"Anglia i polska" -> was "polska" not capitalized? Pleae double check. Probably should be "Anglia i Polska"
Typo sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:04, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
"Koźmian translated poems by Lord Byron..." - a year range of those publications would be good, it is confusingly implied those translations were included in the "A i P" volume, which probably is not the case? Consider merging this sentence with the last sentence ("In 1870–1872 Koźmian published two volumes of prose and poetry"). Maybe name the volumes?
I couldn't pin down a year range, if I come across one I'll add it. Sentence moved to avoid confusion you identified, and the title of his 1870-1872 work (Pism wierszem i prozq, with the English translation as i couldn't find one) added as well. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:37, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
"The Newspaper of the Grand Duchy of Poznań (Gazeta Wielkiego Księstwa Poznańskiego [pl]). -> the ill template is a bit messed up here, there should be a proper WP:RED link to the newspaper title in English
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 12:12, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
some sources for further reading? dissertation; you already cite the 2009 book that the author wrote based on it (here's a book review)
He also has a two page entry in Antoni Gąsiorowski, Jerzy Topolski (red.): Wielkopolski słownik biograficzny. Warszawa-Poznań: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1981, s. 374-375. ISBN 83-01-02722-3. (info from pl wiki)
There are sources out there not listed in the article, but as the Further reading section is already five items long (MOS:FURTHER mentions including "a reasonable number"), I'll hold back from adding to it unless some those listed are moved up into Sources. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:49, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Amitchell125, I'd strongly recommend listing PSB there. The WSB cited above is not as famous but probably still worth doing so. I don't think going from 5 to 7 is problem, and those are good sources to check (particularly the PSB). The dissertation, not so much, except it is online and linkable, so maybe to EL? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:45, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Happy to add the PSB (which I cannot access but imagine would be very informative)now accessed. The dissertation is also unavailable to me, and as it's unlikely to have anything not already contained in the author's book, I'd rather not include it. Likewise I cannot access the article in Wielkopolski słownik biograficzny, and as I don't know if it has anything extra to add not already in the article, I won't be listing it.  Amitchell125 (talk) 08:18, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Heh, that's pretty close to a proper GA review... now I need to see if I can dig up any good biographies of the subject. In general, my first go-to work is Polski Słownik Biograficzny, but it is not well digitized :( He does have an entry in it (Stefan Kieniewicz, „Stanisław Egbert Koźmian” [w:] Polski słownik biograficzny, T. 15). I might be able to read the entry in a few months when if all stars align I will visit Poland again. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:06, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@Piotrus: Happily, I have now been able to cite Kieniewicz in the article (it's available online here). Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 18:52, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Amitchell125, Excellent find. I'll read it and see if I can find any details worth adding. I think my pre-review is pretty much done, I could upgrade it to a full GA pass but arguably having another, independent reviewer do a second pass wouldn't hurt. PS. Update - done expanding with PSB. You may want to review my additions, I am sure some prose copyediting won't go amiss. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:03, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Piotrus for all your suggestions, most of which I have acted upon. As I am sure you are aware, to start the review process, click and save the link in the talk page, and complete the review there. As you have not contributed significantly to the article, there's nothing to prevent you taking on the review. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 06:39, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
After my recent edits I think I might have contributed too much to be an impartial reviewer...  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:58, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
PS. I just noticed one technical issue - you added the "sfn" references. I dislike them (for example, they don't work well with visual editor). In either case, you probably need to either convert everything into sfn format or remove it, citations style should be consistent. I recommend jettisoning sfn as a personal preference. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:43, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

As the {{sfn}} format is the style I have used throughout, and it works perfectly well for me, I won't be converting it. See MOS:FNNR for more information. Similarly, Wikipedia:Good_article_criteria#Notes is specific in stating that there does not need to be a consistent format at GA (but I'll take a look anyway). Amitchell125 (talk) 06:24, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
PPS. Another thought: can we remove 1910 Tarnowski's  Catholic Encyclopedia as a source, replacing it with more modern and non-tetriary sources? Not a biggie, but probably a general best practice. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:45, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Good idea, I'll see what I can do. Amitchell125 (talk) 06:29, 31 July 2021 (UTC)