Talk:Prussian Homage (painting)

Krzysztof Kreutzer

According to this, one of those two figures is "Krzysztof Kreutzer, Prussian diplomat". The problem is that I cannot find any source, on the web or in Google Books, that uses this name. I tried searching for "Christopher Kreutzer", no results. So I am open to the possibility that his surname was corrupted by the source, and needs fixing.

On another note, there is a number of sources online (some webpages, and Google Books material) that I've not explored, but could be used to expand the article ([1], [2]). They are in Polish, and I have no time to work on them now. But if somebody is interested in working on this, there is room (and sources) for further expansion. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 00:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Kneeling figures behind George and Frederick

I may have missed it in the list of figures, but who are the two figures kneeling on the left side of the red-covered steps, to the left of George and Frederick? It's not clear if one of them is Janusz III, or if they are just generic retainers attending the Margrave and the Duke. The nearer one seems quite carefully represented to just be a retainer, and their positioning and colouring seems to make them very prominent. Also, what's the nearer one holding - a helmet for one of the rulers? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:29, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I think they are generic retainers (squires) attending the dignitaries. I don't recall them discussed beyond that in the sources I've read so far. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:53, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

B-class review

Further information: Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-class criteria:

1. suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary, Y
2. reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies, Y
3. has a defined structure, Y
4. reasonably well-written, Y
5. contains supporting materials where appropriate, Y
6. presents its content in an appropriately understandable way, Y

Poeticbent talk 20:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Prussian Homage (painting)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ColonelHenry (talk · contribs) 04:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Initial comments

QUICKFAIL CRITERIA: There are none currently, but I believe a {{cleanup}} tag would be appropriate for reasons stated below.

CRITERIA #1 ISSUES: I do not believe this article is well-written. This article's sentence structures would benefit from the advice of Strunk and White's Elements of Style.

• It reads in sections like a sterile recitation of factoids and lacks a captivating flow.
• The sentences are not entirely clear and often a mishmash of stilted clauses and fragments that make for an awkward sentence structure.
• There are too many commas and semi-colons resulting in awkward clauses. These sentences could be revised. One example: At the same time, the painting, through inclusion, gestures and facial expressions of certain characters, foreshadows the tragedies of the future. Second example: The painting, due to its critique of Albrecht, and the portrayed event, is often seen as strongly anti-Prussian. This is a problem throughout the text.
• There are places where commas belong. Example: It is regarded as a historical painting which shows the triumphal past of Poland, the glory of its culture and the majesty of its kings An "Oxford comma" belongs after culture. This error is found in several categorical series within the article.

CRITERIA #2 ISSUES: While the article might be factually article, it relies too heavily on one source (endnote #2). I would broaden the resources cited in this article and not rely so heavily on one interpretation or source (i.e. endnote #2).

OTHER CRITERIA ISSUES: I do not see any issues regarding criteria 3, 4, 5, and 6.

NON-CRITERIA ADVICE: While the GA criteria doesn't mandate images, it implies if possible some should be available. I believe the historical figures in the painting section could be better explained by an image with an outline of the people in the painting where each person's outlines are numbered and those numbers correspond to the names. As it stands now, it is a list, but in order to figure it out person by person, you have to repeatedly scroll up and down to the image at the beginning of the article or toggle between windows (if the image were opened in a new window) to efficiently "put a face to a name." An image placed near the list would be easier for reference.

I think this is a good article of a noteworthy subject and I look forward to seeing it become a GA. At this time, however, I will place it on hold for two weeks (from 27 JULY 2012) so that the nominator and other editors can improve it per the above.--ColonelHenry (talk) 04:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll try to post a more detailed response soon. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I have asked for native speakers to c/e the article. Regarding the source - I simply couldn't find anything better. Regarding the map, it would be nice, but I lack the skill to do so. I'll ask User:Kpalion who did a map for the Constitution of 3 May, 1791 (painting). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Please note that the article has been c/e-ed by English native speakers a few days ago. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• I'll take a look over the next few minutes, if I see any minor errors, I'll correct them myself. Any major issues, I'll report here for your and other editors to address. Then after, put up the GAList template.--ColonelHenry (talk) 04:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Overall summary (08AUG12)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Many of the problems with comma use were cleaned up in copyedits by others in the last 10 days. However, there are still commas where there shouldn't be commas. There are historical and continuity questions regarding the section on figures depicted in the painting (at length below).

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   regarding MOS policies in Criteria 1b: Nlead, Ylayout, Ywords to watch, Yfiction, and Ylists. Per WP:LEAD, there should a summary of the information in the history section and a little more on the painting's significance section in the lede, there should be some attempt at summarizing something about the figures (and their depiction) in the painting as well.

(As a disclaimer, I made a few revisions to the lede's opening paragraph earlier this evening before rendering this summary.)

1. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   While the article does rely heavily on endnote #2, it seems to be one of the few comprehensive sources available regarding the subject. Nevertheless, the article does have a good supply of sources to cite. Note though that three sources are in Polish only and might be inaccessible to those who do not read Polish who may seek further information or confirmation. I (reviewer) do not speak Polish and relied on an online translator. Although the writers of these Polish-language sources are reliable, scholarly, and well-regarded within the discipline of Polish and European art history.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   article comprehensively covers the subject, and ties the subject into its broader cultural and historical context.

   B. Focused:

   article provided excellent analysis and explanation of the painting

3. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

4. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

5. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

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

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

6. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Will give it a few more days for criteria 1 issues, list to come below. I applaud the efforts of the nominator thus far, and foresee passing this when a few more minor issues are addressed.

Remaining Comma Issues and Other Questions:

Most of these are in the historical figures section, it would just as well be easier if I revised that section. Any difficulties will be added immediately after I look through the section for this purpose. --ColonelHenry (talk) 05:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Continuity and Historical Questions

• How many people depicted in the painting were not actually at the real event?
• Which one is the diplomat: Hieronymus Jaroslaw Łaski or Jan Łaski?
• Who planned the marraige to Prince Janusz--Hedwig or her parents?
• Do you mean "modelled" instead of "impersonated". This should be added as a follow-up sentence and not as parenthetical material within the sentence describing the historical figure. (example: Queen Bona Sforza, impersonated by Matejko's wife Teodora Matejko, appears center-left. should become Queen Bona Sforza appears center-left. Matejko used his wife Teodora as a model for the Queen.)
• How does Lanckoroński personify military prowess?
• Grand Hetman of Lithuania, Voivode of Trakai, and Castellan of Vilnius. This doesn't mean anything to anyone who is not acquainted with Polish political history and suffers from not being explained. It might be best to explain, parenthetically (and simply) what these titles are by saying "Standing on the left is X, a member of the nobility who was Grand Hetman of Lithuania."
• Was Tarnowski a contemporary of Matejko? I assume he was. Might be good to explain they were friends/contemporaries, etc. Typically, an artist in the English-speaking world really doesn't have a biographer until he's dead (with the infrequent notable exceptions being the German author Goethe and Samuel Johnson) and without clarification most Americans and Brits would wonder "how did that happen?"

Questions of Imputed Motive or Emotional Distress

• Many of the characters are described as being worried, proud, having difficulty, etc. How do we know that? According to whom? It's hard to baldly state that considering we can'thget in the character's heads. It might be best to construct such assertions by saying: "According to (source), X is purportedly worried that..."
• His presence in the painting is intended to symbolize the wisdom of the king as a legislator. Intended by who--the painter?

Just a few thoughts --ColonelHenry (talk) 05:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• Lead expanded.
• People who are not there: they are noted as such in text. They include: Duchess Anna Radziwiłł... and that's it, I think (so I changed several to "at least one" in text).
• Who planned... her parents. Clarified in text.
• Modeled, yes. I don't think it was me who added the impersonated verb there, I changed it now even before reading your comments.
• Lanckoroński. He does it through his personal history and figure, as per source (which is not that clear on that, anyway). Add "his figure" to make it more clear.
• Added explanations for hetman and voivode.
• Rewrote the Tarnowski's part to make it clear he wrote Matejko's bio 4 years after his death.
• Proud, etc. According to the sources cited inline. While I agree it can be a bit of a stretch, well, we follow the cited sources. As they do it often, I don't think it would be a good idea to attribute those judgements in text, or every second sentence would become "according to Rezner" :)
• Intended to symbolize... presumably, as interpreted by the author of a cited source. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Final Analysis (Promoted GA: 09AUG12)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

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

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   =User:Piotrus has done an excellent job with this article and was very cordial to respond to my suggestions for improvement. Congratulations for an well-done, informative article that deserves GA status!

Additional informations border

Is there any reason that the #Additional informations section is surrounded by a decorative border? And that #Notes has a yellow background? Chris857 (talk) 23:28, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Tell me Chris, is there any why it should not ? Krenakarore ^TK 23:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

MoS? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmmmm, no. There's nothing there. The best about working with you Piotrus, is that you better what was done before instead of going back to correct things that you at first din't like or agree with.......:) ) ! If Schumacher stopped everytime he saw something wrong, he wouldn't be Schumacher right ? Although I think he will never be a champion. Will you see that "Colonel punctuation" or will I ? Krenakarore ^TK 00:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Errr. Frankly, I think that the use of the additional information box is an interesting idea, but it should not be done individually - we should have a community discussion as it is a rather significant change of MoS. With regards to the other elements of the article, I've asked for c/e from some native speakers I know, and will work on other issues shortly. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Strike when the iron is hot.....:) ! Alright, go ahead ! Best, Krenakarore ^TK 00:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Prussian Homage (painting). 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://archive.is/20130201214350/http://www.robertkusmierz.com/zamosc/zamosc.php?d=wydarzenia&a=hold_pruski to http://www.robertkusmierz.com/zamosc/zamosc.php?d=wydarzenia&a=hold_pruski

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 22:14, 30 September 2017 (UTC)