Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tadeusz Kościuszko/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 13 October 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Tadeusz Kościuszko edit

Tadeusz Kościuszko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:51, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I think after passing MILHIST A-class review it is ready for the final stage. Two notes: 1) I am a WP:CUP participant 2) my responses may be a bit delayed over the next week or so due to Wikimania. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:51, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Piotrus. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK (PD-age, own work). Sources and authors provided (cleaned up a few image summaries and one placement). GermanJoe (talk) 12:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Google Books links don't need retrieval dates
  • Use a consistent date format
  • FN36: formatting
  • Philadelphia Inquirer should be italicized done
  • Be consistent in whether you include locations for books
  • Page formatting - check consistency of spacing
  • Order and formatting for Further reading entries needs fixing. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:02, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done, although I am not sure if I addressed the order - seems good to me, other than the Cyrillic entries I can't read. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:55, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Most not done, actually - be sure References and Bibliography are both fixed. Ordering is now fine, but formatting is still off: one has publisher, one has publisher and location, one has neither. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • @User:Nikkimaria: Can you be specific which books have errors? I have double checked everything an fixed a few more issues, but if something is still off, I am not seeing it. And I am pretty sure that FN36 is well formatted. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Retrieval dates now fixed. FN97 is an example of variable date formatting. FN36 needs endash and might need spacing, depending on which formatting you choose. Kite reverses order of publisher and location, while Pula includes no location and Niestsiarchuk includes neither location nor publisher. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ok, if by variable date formatting you meant comma missing, this is now fixed there and in another ref I saw it. – added to FN36, I don't see the need for spacing? Kite, Pula fixed. I cannot help with Niestsiarchuk, it was not added by me, nor is it in a language I can help with (@User:Gwillhickers - can you help here?). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per my review at A-class level in Milhist; I am fine with the edits made since that time. Cdtew (talk) 14:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Article is well researched, lots of details and in depth coverage, has more than enough citations and is well written. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:02, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support looks excellent. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 22:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support I've sorted the "Other sources" and "Further reading" into alphabetic order for you. I can read the Cyrillic. Disclaimer: I reviewed the article at GA. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support....Ran some automated tools including citation bot and all looks pretty good. Would like a couple days to read through article a few times before I post further comments.--MONGO 16:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have read through the article several times now. Aside from what I would consider to be a slight over use of commas the article is comprehensive, generally neutral and well sourced. I've done a few edits myself but these were very minor tweaks as that was about all I could find.--MONGO 15:26, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comment -- Based on a very quick scan, the article needs someone to go through the prose. In the lead alone, for instance, Thomas Jefferson is three times referred to as the subject's friend; once should be enough. Further on I noticed "In late 1775, considered joining the Saxon army"; easily fixed but this sort of error should not show up in an article with five supports for promotion to FA. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:07, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I took it one step further. Jefferson's name still appeared four times in the lede so I condensed one of the passages in question as the associated details (e.g. criticism of Jefferson, etc) are well covered in the body of the text. This is the Kościuszko biography, not Jefferson's, who is now only mentioned by name twice in the lede. -- Gwillhickers 09:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • New content covering events just before Kościuszko made out his last will, with citation, has been added to the Last will section, putting the event in better context, so reviewers might want to give that a peek also. (first paragraph) -- Gwillhickers 00:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've just reworded parts of the lead, based on this I can only assume the rest of the article would still benefit from further copyediting. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Support
    • I'll make a thorough copyedit as I go.
      • Done.
    • First thing I notice: the "Name" section is too short for a proper section. You should make it into a note.
      • Done.
    • This sentence in "European travels": "He also had to deal with a legal dispute involving a brother." If you're not going to do more with it, it's best to leave it out. Right now, it just suggests a story that it never tells.
      • Done.
    • "...he considered joining the Saxon army but was turned down..." Did he attempt to join, or just think about it?
      • I think that "was turned down" makes it clear that he attempted to join?
        • OK, then it should say "attempted to join". "Considered" looks like he just thought about it.
          • Done.
    • In "American Revolutionary War": is there some significance to the fact that the ship he sailed on was owned by "Hortalez & Co."? If so, explain; if not, it's just a distraction to the reader.
      • Done.
    • The two sentences about Agrippa Hull and the polonaise seem really out of place. Is there some way to work them into the narrative?
      • I merged and reorderem them, they should be a little less out of place now.
    • I don't think you need the {{clear}} in that section. I removed it. If this causes problems, fee free to revert me.
    • You probably ought to use a conversion template when you mention measurements in miles, etc.
      • Done.
    • Many believe James Island to be the last battle of the war -- why don't they all believe it? Is there another battle later? Is there a scholarly consensus on the matter?
      • Hmmm, good catch, this was an old claim from the unreferenced times of the article. I've found a ref and reworded the text to make the source clear.
    • "In late May 1783, Kościuszko decided to collect his back pay, as in his seven years of faithful, uninterrupted service to the American cause he had never collected any pay." Kind of cumbersome. How about "Having not been paid in his seven years of service, in late May 1783, Kościuszko decided to collect the salary owed to him."?
      • Done.
    • "Kościuszko's funeral was held on October 19, 1817 at a former Jesuit church." Where? In Solothurn?
      • PSB doesn't state the location other than a "former jesuit church". I don't have access to Strozynski, won't have it till December. Added a new ref for location, so it should be good to go for this.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "His body was embalmed and placed in a crypt at Solothurn's Jesuit Church." I thought it was a former Jesuit church?
      • Should be, fixed.
    • In the note about his will, I don't understand the line about Taney. Judgments were (and still are) sometimes written without an author (per curiam).
    • The whole will section is odd, with the first part jumping back to events decades earlier. Is that part even necessary? It seems enough to say that he made a will in America and how he wanted his money used, etc. The mention of the ACW is also odd.
    • "Kościuszko's bequest to Jefferson remained legally blocked by his relatives..." By whose relatives? Active voice would make it clearer: "[X]'s relatives legally blocked Kościuszko's bequest..."
    • I'm not sure it's necessary to mention Annette Gordon-Reed's race (or to mention her at all). The whole thing about what Jefferson did is more about Jefferson than Kościuszko. That whole last paragraph in "Last will" seems tacked on, and distracts from the subject of the article.
      • I'll ping the author User:Gwillhickers to answer questions about this section. (I still think we may be better of splitting this into a new article and just summarizing key points in TK bio).
        • Ah, didn't realize it was a different author. That explains it, because it reads very differently than the rest of your writing.
    • The "See also" section: is there any way to work these things into the article? The monument, surely, could fit in "Tributes and memorials". List of Poles seems unnecessary. And Pulaski, if he had interactions with Kościuszko should be wroked into the main article.
    • That's all. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I haven't found anything else on a second read-through. I'll check back later about the will stuff. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Last will

  • Last will section. While an important topic I don't think there's enough material there to warrant making it a separate article, as Piotrus suggested to me earlier. The section is of average length and is by no means near the largest. We would still have to represent this topic in the article regardless and it seems, given its notoriety, we have already done so adequately. We can always scale down some text if there is pressing concern by FA reviewers that the section is too long, which imo has not reached this point, the section being roughly a half a page long (+ - depending on your browser settings). There is historical commentary from two sources (Hodges and Reed) as to why Jefferson declined the will. Reed's race, African American, is mentioned (introduced by another editor) as there is a growing attitude in much of so called 'modern academia' that any "defense" of Jefferson regarding his dealing with slavery issues is racially motivated. Even so, I don't see any specific reason why we should not mention Ms Reed's race, given the racial connotations often associated with the topic. -- Gwillhickers 10:00, 13 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Caution We presently have about five editors actively making numerous changes to this Good Article, so we need to proceed carefully. Already I have had to restore a number of items, and while sometimes it's good to scale down some of the text, it is not 'automatically' a good thing, especially when the truncated text starts to read like a police report or an entry in a dictionary. If there is concern that the overall page is too long (currently only at 75 k) please be reminded that there are many FA rated articles that are much longer (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... ) and are so because they are well written, ofter plenty of details and depth of coverage -- all FA requirements. -- Gwillhickers 10:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • If there are active edit disputes going on, then this article must fail Featured article criterion 1e. It's a shame, because other than that section, I was ready to support. I won't oppose yet, but I can't support it, either. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:38, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't call it an "active edit dispute", so let's not hype matters here. The idea regarding a separate page for the Last will section was suggested and all that was done was to point out the section length is average and that we must cover this topic anyways, which has been done in summary, while an opinion was offered regarding mentioning Reed's race, which I am not dead set on including. While the section does involve Jefferson, it also involves Kościuszko's family, Kościuszko's sentiments about slavery, his wishes etc. I would suggest to keep as much coverage as possible. We can trim the Hodges/Reed commentary as this is directed at Jefferson. As a FA we don't want to pass off the topic with just average coverage imo. -- Gwillhickers 12:58, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's no active dispute, unless we make one. I hope we can resolve it without it escalating to that :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:08, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. As I said, we can get rid of the commentary but I would recommend we give the topic good coverage per FA standards. What else would you suggest? -- Gwillhickers 13:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My comments are above. The section doesn't fit in with the rest of the article, it's mostly about Jefferson, not Kościuszko, and it jumps around chronologically. It's coatracky and duplicative. Piotrus already covered the material perfectly in the "Later life" section when he wrote "Before leaving, he wrote a last will which allocated substantial of his resources to the manumission of American black slaves." The rest of the article's great; this part stands out like a sore thumb. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The topic of the last will is covered with one sentence in the Later life section: Before leaving, he wrote a last will which allocated substantial of his resources to the manumission of American black slaves. This hardly covers the topic. The section, though smaller, was part of the article when it passed GA. While the section may mention Jefferson more than it should, it is still mostly about Kościuszko, how he was secretly smuggled out of the county with Jefferson's help, the will, Kościuszko's family, etc. The idea to remove the section entirely is excessive, as are your opinions of it. We can trim the section accordingly but there is no call for introducing excessive and hyper opinionated language into the discussion, as this will indeed make the dialog "hotly disputed", something only you are doing. Why don't we let Piotrus make the call? -- Gwillhickers 13:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do whatever you want. I'm removing this from my watchlist. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We-ll, my call has been and is "split and shorten"... I mean, last wills can be notable, and this one seems like it could stand on its own.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that seems to be the way to go. As I said, his last will involves much more than just leaving some money to his family, it involves much else. i.e.Kościuszko's relationship and trust for Jefferson, his strong feelings about slavery, etc. It gives us one of the best, among others, insights into Kościuszko the man. I don't know if the topic would make for much of a stand alone article, not unless you wanted to expand on all the legal and family involvements of the will, but we can certainly trim the section down if that's what the consensus is, but let's remember, the will is one of the things Kościuszko is famous for, and given its contents, rightly so. I'll get to work on it. -- Gwillhickers 19:53, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, the section has been reduced by about half. Jefferson is mentioned for his involvement and trust for getting Kościuszko secretly out of the country and as to why he turned down the will, which gives context to the ultimate fate of the Kościuszko's will. We don't just want to say, 'Jefferson refused to act on the will -- period'. Mention is also given to what eventually became of Kościuszko's funds. -- Gwillhickers 20:13, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do nominator and active reviewers now consider the article stable and outstanding points actioned, or is work still going on? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:45, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My concerns are satisfied. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(od) It seems that every time I return here there's something new in the lead that catches my eye. This time it's "After he attempted to elope with his employer's daughter and was mercilessly thrashed by the magnate's retainers, he returned to France. (Kościuszko never married.)". First of all, "mercilessly thrashed" is highly emotive for an encyclopedic article, especially in the lead. "Thrashed" alone would surely suffice to get the point across. Secondly, the bald statement "(Kościuszko never married.)" seems out of place here and for me raises more questions than it answers, e.g. did he never marry because of the thrashing? Suggest just dropping it from the lead entirely. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:09, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The term "mercilessly thrashed" was added at this point. You're right, it's a bit outlandish. I'll try to make a better edit. -- Gwillhickers 19:22, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was added by one of the copyeditors. At the point where copyeditors dislike other copyeditors style of writing, this is really a matter of taste, not quality of language, IMHO. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:25, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Links in lede :
There seems to be quite a few links in the lede which I think would be better if they occurred in the body of the text, esp common knowledge links, such as Poland, Belarus, Lithuania, and the United States. If there is a consensus to reduce this number a bit we should, as it would be less distracting as the lede goes for any reader coming to the page to learn about Kosciuszko. It would seem that topics should only be linked here if they are key topics to the article's subject, and only when they are not common knowledge topics. The lede is not the place to invite the reader to tens of other subjects. Interest or curiosity for a topic/link usually occurs when that topic is used in context in the body of the text, imo. Currently there are some 33 links in the lede. I removed a few. i.e. Poland was linked twice. -- Gwillhickers 19:45, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objections. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:25, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've already removed a few, as you may know. -- IMO, there should be few (if any) links or ref's in the lede, as the subject's lede should be something totally devoted to that subject/page. -- Gwillhickers 07:30, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Poland postage stamp :
Kosciuszko, standing at far left, next to Thomas Paine and George Washington, w/ cavalry saber in hand, issued 1938
US Postage stamp :
Engraving of Kosciuszko statue; Issued in 1933 on the 150th anniversary of Kosciusko's naturalization as an American citizen

Image proposal: Replace the Mount Kosciuszko, Australia image in the Memorials and tributes section with this double image of Polish and American postage stamps honoring Kosciuszko. The Mount Kosciuszko image is okay but it looks like it could be a photo of any of a thousand other hills. -- Gwillhickers 10:19, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have space for it, and licensing seems fine. But you don't have to post such proposals here, you can just edit the article. That said, it would be nice if we could finish editing, if we keep messing with minor things like this this review may be failed due to article's lack of stability. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Normally I would 'be bold' but at this point the page would be 'more' unstable if I just went ahead and removed and then added another image without a 'howdy-do', esp if someone objected. However, on that note, i.e.stability, I will wait for the article to pass FA and in the mean time we can get feed back. -- Speaking of stability, I think the text is fine at this point so we would do well from making any more numerous (and mostly unneeded) changes in one session, esp when the bulk of these edits only involve a personal preference for wording and nothing more. -- Gwillhickers 18:33, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adding image :

There's enough room to have both images. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How about in Tadeusz_Kościuszko#The_south section? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If it's not going to cause any 'article instability' issues I don't have any objections to including the stamp images in either section. -- Gwillhickers 16:33, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
New : Waiting to add the stamp images was something I opted for thinking that the page would soon be undergoing an active review again, but since reviewers seem to be very busy and the page has sat idle for the last several days I'll go ahead and add the images soon if there are no issues of any consequence with anyone. -- Gwillhickers 15:12, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No objections, the article looks stable now, and we have room for this image in the section I mentioned. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be best to place the image in the section in which it is most appropriate so I'll try to do that without cramping text. If anyone thinks there are too many images in this section then I would suggest that we simply link to the image of Mt. Kosciuszko, as there is already another image of a hill, albeit man made, in the section. Add : Have just added the image, along with some content, w/ citation. Rearranged some text that best allows placement of images. I've also cropped the image of Mount Kosciuszko, as the original image was mostly committed to the foreground. -- Gwillhickers 17:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am in no hurry to add the postage stamp image, and would prefer to wait. I have made what I hope will be my last edit for now. (added needed citation and also mentioned Kosciuszko's architect teacher, Perronet, in Paris, covered by the same citation, with footnote about Kosciuszko's surviving drawings in Polish museums). -- I think the article is good to go. -- Gwillhickers 11:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Outside opinion regarding closure: While I have not fully reviewed this article, I can say that it seems to have stabilized in the last few days, and the "Last will" section doesn't seem problematic to me in any way. I don't think it needs another image, though I don't think an additional stamp image would hurt the article either. With lots of "support" comments, I personally don't see any outstanding issues. – Quadell (talk) 16:53, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New issues edit

Comments Support from Hamiltonstone. Excellent article. Some points:

  • "...but never finished due to family financial straits..." This to me is an unfamiliar syntax or use of the expression. I would have expected something like "...but never finished due to his family's dire financial straits..." If however the expression is normal to US English or something, then leave it be.
Changed to: "due to his family's financial straits". I think that is more graceful and natural. Nihil novi (talk) 06:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consistency issue. In the lede his employer on return to Poland is described as a "magnate", but in the body text the term is not initially used, favouring instead the description "the province governor and hetman Józef Sylwester Sosnowski". I find the word "magnate" a little odd, whereas "province governor" is quite clear and "hetman", while it means nothing to me, is wikilinked so i can recognise it as a foreign term that i can learn about should i wish. Suggest revision of the lede.
The term Magnate is used several times throughout the article and is linked the first time it appears in the body of text. (It occurs in the lede but we're trying to keep links in the lede to a minimum as there were very many, and there are still quite a few there. Best to link such items when they are first used in body of text.) -- Gwillhickers 16:35, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but i think my point has been missed. The person in question is not referred to as a magnate at all in the relevant passage - he is described as a governor, and a hetman, not a magnate. Furthermore, the term "magnate" is not used in the body text until much later. Indeed, when it is, it is linked to Magnate, whereas a better link would be Magnates of Poland and Lithuania. Really, there is a simple solution, to change the lede reference to "province governor".
It would be much simpler if we kept things consistent and just refer to the person in question as a Magnate in the relevant passage and simply link it to the more appropriate page as you pointed out. Also, sometimes links don't occur until "much later". Previously there were some 33 links in the lede. We really don't need to be dragging more links back into it. -- Gwillhickers 06:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed "magnate" in the lead to "province governor", which is more specific. Nihil novi (talk) 06:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Magnates of Poland and Lithuania is even more specific, and was pointed out, and has historical context. Magnate is what is used throughout the article. We need to be consistent. Also, Poland and Lithuania are countries, not provinces. -- Gwillhickers 08:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Governor (wojewoda) of a province (województwo), and hetman, are very specific offices. "Magnate" is not an office or official rank; it simply means a very wealthy and influential person. Nobody said Poland or Lithuania was a województwo (province). If you have doubts about these matters, ask a Polish editor of English Wikipedia. Nihil novi (talk) 08:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you have had past concerns about links in the lede, but "magnate" has a specific meaning in this context, and if you favour that term in the lede and text (as is currently used, which is OK from a consistency point of view), then it must be linked in the lede as well. It should not be capitalised in either occurrence (as it is at present). hamiltonstone (talk) 10:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Capitalization is not a problem, but the lede is not the place to be calling the reader's attention to a myriad of lesser topics when he/she hasn't even digested the basic premise of the subject in the lede yet, imo. If a reader is that interested or curious about a given term they can always check on it the old fashioned way. If we follow strict linking policy with an academic mentality then the lede is going to look mostly blue. (blur) That is why we have this policy. There are a number of topics more important in the lede that are also not linked. -- Gwillhickers 16:11, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yesterday I re-read the lead and for the first time had no concerns with it, but "magnate province-governor" sounds exceedingly odd and long-winded to me, suggest either "magnate" or "province governor" but not both. Furthermore there are several statements in the article that are not cited, one in Later life (second para) and a few in Memorials and tributes -- I realise the latter may seem self-evident, but other FAs usually manage to cite such things. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done (the first point). Nihil novi (talk) 23:56, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hope [2] this is an acceptable fix; linking to the person in the lead seems simpler and more helpful than using a title (plus I dislike "province governor", where voivode is a recognized, if technical, English word...). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Ian Rose: citations added. While the latter were from a content added by new editor, the earlier citations were removed by someone. I am not going to waste time tracking the culprit, but I assume they did so because they were annoyed by the same cite repeated in every sentence. Then someone split the para, and voila, unref para appears. Sigh. This is why I keep saying that most sentences should be cited - perfect example for the problem I describe there. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am the "culprit" here. As they were deleted back in February and after many 100s of edits since then I had forgotten about them. Just a note: -- It is a common practice to cite two or more consecutive sentences with one cite if they get their information from one source/page. Don't know off hand if this is policy or not, but that's what is usually done. Can't think of any article where each and every sentence is cited using the same citations, though I imagine there must be a couple out there, somewhere. -- Gwillhickers 17:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On learning of the American Revolution, Kościuszko, himself a revolutionary..." Well, no, not yet. So far K had studied, travelled, failed to get into a military academy, studied further, tutored, failed to elope with a girl, and failed to get into the Saxon army. He is about to be a revolutionary, but he certainly is not yet one.
Well, I think one can be a revolutionary without actually having to pick up a gun and take to battle, but i stipulated ..a man of revolutionary aspirations, sympathetic to the American cause.. -- Gwillhickers 16:22, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "presented a memorial to the United States Congress," To me, a memorial is a large piece of stone with something written on it. Is that actually what he presented? From whom? What did it say? Very strange...
Changed "presented a memorial" to "submitted an application". Nihil novi (talk) 07:23, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Shortly after, Gates relieved Schuyler and regrouped his forces to try to prevent the British from taking Albany." No citation?
    • Good catch. It was unreferenced, a missed artifact of the old text before I started my c/e of it. I removed it. That's why all sentences should have a cite... any that doesn't is suspicious. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:21, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I got confused. Early in the article, we have this phrase: "a difficult choice between the rebels and his sponsors — the King and the Czartoryskis, who favored a gradualist approach to shedding Russian domination —..." When I read this, I assumed the King and the Czartoryskis were both his sponsors and on the opposing side of the conflict from the "rebels". However, part way through the article, when K returns to Poland, we have this: "Due to the ongoing conflict between his patrons, the Czartoryskis, and King Stanisław August Poniatowski,..." My first thought was: did i mis-read the first passage? My second thought was: I can't have, but in that case, what "ongoing" conflict are we talking about? The WP article refers to "the" ongoing conflict, which suggests we have been told about it. Did I miss that? Maybe at least drop the "the"?
Changed to: "Due to a conflict between his patrons, the Czartoryskis, and King Stanisław August Poniatowski,..." Nihil novi (talk) 07:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While officially subordinate to Prince Józef Poniatowski, recognizing Kościuszko's superior experience, Poniatowski made him his second-in-command" But second-in-command is subordinate. So what's with the "While officially"?
Deleted "While officially subordinate to" and rephrased the sentence. Nihil novi (talk) 07:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Much better.
  • "the King betrayed the army..." Whoa. This was a monarchy, and that expression suggests serious POV. It is the King's army. He can't "betray" it. In contrast, the subsequent expression "The King's capitulation was a hard blow for Kościuszko..." is an appropriate way to describe a situation.
Changed "betrayed" to "shocked". Nihil novi (talk) 06:36, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...but was dissuaded by the King's nephew, Prince Józef Poniatowski." This is odd, because the Prince has been referred to repeatedly up to this point, as K's commander etc. It should not be after so many appearances that we are told for the first time that he is the King's nephew.
Good point. I've moved the kinship up to the earliest mention that I found of Prince Józef Poniatowski. Nihil novi (talk) 06:10, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was with you until this sentence, which is completely opaque to the reader: "This was a shock to the Targowica Confederates, who had seen themselves as defenders of centuries-old privileges of the magnates, but who were now regarded by most Poles as traitors". The who? I'm not talking about the need for a wikilink - it is there - but rather the lack of any contextualisation of how this fits in to the discussion, or why it is relevant. And why would you not expect "most Poles" (ie. the peasants) to see defenders of rich people as "traitors". The notion therefore that it was a "shock" to them is counterintuitive. Rich people who defend rich people are seldom shocked when poor people hold them in low esteem. I'm sorry, but this did not fit in the narrative at all. Would anything be lost from a bio of K if you just deleted this sentence?
I've modified the sentence to: "This came as a shock to the Targowica Confederates, who had seen themselves as defenders of centuries-old privileges of the magnates, but had hardly expected that their appeal for help to the Tsarina of Russia would further reduce and weaken their country." I hope this clarifies the sentence. Nihil novi (talk) 06:33, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, on the plus side, the sentence is now completely clear. But I am not sure how it relates to the actions of K, who is the subject of this biography. I don't understand the subject well enough to express a view, except to say that, as a lay person, it is not clear to me how the omission of the sentence would adversely affect the bio. But I'm pleased it has at least been made clear :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 10:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jefferson said he wanted to educate blacks before they were freed, which was formally against Virginia law." Suggest you rewrite to make clear whether it was educating blacks, or freeing them, which was against the law".
Made the point by adding manumission to the sentence, w/ link. -- Gwillhickers 04:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "An opera, Kościuszko nad Sekwaną (Kościuszko at the Seine),... and works by Maria Konopnicka." no citations at all? There's also a cite needed tag on the preceding sentence, regarding the numerous editions of a work.
The cite needed tag was recently added. The contributing editor was notified and has responded but for some reason has not added the cite. Something to do with the expectations of cites being obnoxious if the item linked to is sourced on the other page. Comments were made about adding the cite on the Kosciuszko talk page but nothing has materialized yet. We might have to strike the statement in question. -- Gwillhickers 17:00, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the various points above, very close to supporting. The line about "betraying" the army is the biggest clanger. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 11:21, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now supporting on assumption that, whatever the final solution is to the discussion about magnates etc above, lede and body text use same term, and the wikilinks are to the specialised polish/ lithuanian magnate article. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Current status edit

I have added (in the Memorials and tributes section) what I hope are the last few citations needed in the Kosciuszko article. For the last two months we have covered, fixed, reworded and tweaked this article in more detail than most as FA nominations go -- and it had major support before the latest round of 'adjustments' a few days ago. Are there any last items standing in the way of moving forward with the nomination? -- Gwillhickers 19:26, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I object to the sentence in the Last Will section that currently reads "Jefferson said he wanted to educate blacks before they were freed, but manumission was formally against Virginia law." The supporting reference (no. 5) is given as Nash and Hodges, p. 232. (Nash, Gary; Hodges, Graham Russell Gao (2012). Friends of Liberty: Thomas Jefferson, Tadeusz Kosciuszko, and Agrippa Hull. New York, NY: Basic Books. p. 328. ISBN 978-0-465-03148-1.) I can't see this in Google Books, but an authorized reprint of a part of the book by History News Network, here [3], doesn't mention this. It reads "Why did Jefferson, while throwing himself energetically into the creation of the University of Virginia, plead that he was too old and tired to carry out Kosciuszko’s will and betray the trust of his Polish compatriot? One of the key reasons was Jefferson’s allegiance to the Old Dominion aristocracy and his devotion to sustaining the economic and cultural leverage of the white South in national politics. He also feared offending friends, especially slaveowners..." There is no mention of Virginia law in this excerpt. If Nash & Hodges do mention Virginia law on page 232, could the editor who can see that Nash & Hodges book page give us a verbatim, quoted couple of sentences here. Those would show up in a Google search, a way of verifying.
Why not say something like "Jefferson's executorship of the will remains the subject of debate." As easily-verifiable references for that sentence, you could use the Slate article [4] and the Atlantic article [5] The will is clearly, as Piotr says, worthy of its own WP article (I'm aware that it'd be subject to the same POV-weight problems as all the other Jefferson articles, just proposing a sentence and references along these lines for this article). Novickas (talk) 20:34, 3 October 2013 (UTC) Objection resolved. Novickas (talk) 20:46, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The reasons for Jefferson not taking on the will are perfectly understandable, and the reasons given are sourced and we have already resolved the issue regarding scaling down the section to its current size. No one says you can't devote a dedicated article to this subject. The will is one of the major topics associated with Kosciuszko and deserves at least a section in this article. If you are unable to view certain books on line then I'd suggest going to the public library or buying them and see if you can come up with something concrete to base any objections you still might have after you have read them. Taking on the University project late in his life was one of Jefferson's loves and didn't involve all the conflict and legal batters that were associated with the will, and it didn't upset any particular political party or interest group as the issue of freeing slaves would have had. Nor was it against Virginia law. The article deals with the facts, not any moral implications either way, nor does it contain any conjecture as to why Jefferson 'didn't do this -- but did that', as the Slate and other speculative articles typically do. -- Gwillhickers 00:31, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let me try again - maybe I didn't express myself clearly enough. The article currently states ...but manumission was formally against Virginia law. You agreed it wasn't illegal when you wrote just above "Nor was it against Virginia law". So would you object to removing that clause? I certainly agree with you that the will deserves a section (I added some material about it myself, back in 2009.[6]). It's just that it seems to me that even without the inaccurate it-was-against-the-law clause in that sentence, its first part, "Jefferson said he wanted to educate blacks before they were freed", even without that clause, is starting down the slippery slope of interpreting Jefferson's actions and I think we do agree that this article should avoid interpretation, in the vein of either blame or empathy, and stick to the undisputed parts. But I do think it's important to mention the controversy in one way or another here and that's why I suggested including one sentence to the effect that J's decision has been much discussed with a couple of links to reliable sources about it. I'm open to suggestions about how this should be done. Novickas (talk) 11:15, 4 October 2013 (UTC) Resolved. Novickas (talk) 20:46, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have the Nash & Hodges book in front of me, and am looking at page 232. It mentions that the New York Daily Advertiser wrote "but the laws of Virginia have prevented the will of Kosciusko from being carried out" and that Richmond's Enquirer "reported that the nation's third president was blocked by Virginia's laws that 'created difficulties...". These are just newspaper quotes - someone, somewhere along the line, must have edited this article so as to attribute them to Nash & Hodges. It's quite clear that N&H are only quoting newspapers and don't support those newspapers' interpretations - their History Network piece contains the words "Jefferson's broken promise" and the book's subtitle contains the words 'A Tragic Betrayal of Freedom". I see the complications-with-Virginia-law material also made it into the lead. I will now be bold and edit both sections. I'm willing to let go of the request that the historical and ongoing controversy be mentioned here, really it would best be treated in a dedicated article. Novickas (talk) 21:48, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the analysis. The will and its legacy (sic) are clearly notable, and it is often a good idea to split potentially controversial content from an otherwise stable article into a dedicate subarticle. We can surely make a good DYK out of that topic, and with the level of interest, sources and discussion I see about this, perhaps make the will article into its own GA, at least. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:47, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I restored the section to its prior version. Manumission was indeed against Virgina law and greatly factored into Jefferson's decision to decline acting on the will. I also restored the brief historical context leading up to the will, as we are trying to build a Featured Articled and such details, context and depth of coverage are required. Mention of Jefferson getting Kosciuszko secretly out of the country is an important part of the biography, last will, or no last will. This item just so happens to be better placed in this section as again, this is what led up to the will. We just don't want to give a brief truncated account that reads like a police report. Also, I changed the name of the section back to the version when (almost) everyone here gave their support for the article as it was. Some of Novickas' comments here are interesting but at this point we need to discuss major changes before they occur. -- Gwillhickers 04:22, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have copied the will to Last will and testament of Tadeusz Kościuszko. Can we please agree to move any controversial information to that article? It's an important subject, but it can safely be covered in the article with two - three sentences. I am not opposed to a dedicated section is a compromise version can be worked out, but if not, I will remove most of the content of this section from the article; as interesting as it is it is not a topic of core importance to the article beyond a brief mention. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:54, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for discussing before making any changes. The topic is controversial only when we start making conjectured claims about Jefferson's decision as to why he declined the will. If we just state the facts per reliable sources, then there's nothing to contest. It's a fact that Jefferson plead an inability because of age and surrounding circumstances. If the article should say, it was understandable that Jefferson declined.., then we're asserting moralistic opinion and that's where the controversy and disagreements begin. Also, Jefferson's help in getting Kosciuszko secretly out of the country is a key item to the biography, whether it involved the will or not. The will says a lot about Kosciuszko the man so I guess I disagree about treating this topic with just a dictionary like entry. It's one of the topics Kosciuszko is famous for. If we just stick to the facts per reliable sources there shouldn't be any disagreement or controversy. We've already scaled down the size of this section considerably. We shouldn't let the quality of an article be determined by the possibility that someone, somewhere, is going to have something to say about this detail or that. After all, this is Wikipedia, and many disagree with things simply because they appear under their nose. It seems enough people have given this article, with the section, the 'okay', so we should address any last comments anyone may have to say about the section and move on. A dedicated article is a good idea, but that I suspect will involve legal and family issues in great part, none of which the section here lends itself to. What item(s) do you see as potentially problematic? -- Gwillhickers 07:48, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Really, manumission was not illegal in Virginia at the time. "In 1782 Virginia passed a law allowing manumitted slaves to stay in the state. Until the legislature amended it in 1896, this law allowed a master to free healthy adult slaves without any restrictions...After 1806, masters could still free their slaves, but the former slaves had to leave the state within twelve months...Thousands of Jefferson's fellow Virginians took advantage of the 1782 law, the openness of neighboring jurisdictions, or the American Colonization Society to free their slaves." [7]; "Since 1782 Virginia law had allowed individual manumission by deed or will." [8] It was not banned in Virginia til 1851. [9] The statement in the will section "Jefferson said he wanted to educate blacks before they were freed, but manumission was formally against Virginia law." is...untrue.
Insert : Shouldn't '1896' above read '1796'? The sentence as it presently reads says manumission was legal in Virginia long after the Civil War when slavery was already abolished. -- Gwillhickers 16:50, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It should read "1806". Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another sentence in that section, "There were also political considerations by this time, and Jefferson recommended his friend John Hartwell Cocke, who also opposed slavery, as executor, but for similar reasons Cocke refused to execute the bequest" is also verging into interpretive territory. Suggest rewriting as just "Jefferson recommended his friend John Hartwell Cocke as executor, but Cocke also refused." Novickas (talk) 12:01, 5 October 2013 (UTC) Resolved. Novickas (talk) 20:46, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If that law sentence is removed, and the interpretive material is taken out of the Cocke sentence, I would be OK with the section. I'm uncomfortable with the use of 'last will' since he wrote up three later ones, and suggest it be just "a will" in the lead and Disposition of American estate in the section heading, but no big deal. Novickas (talk) 12:16, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a factual error regarding the time frame when manumission was against Virgina law by all means let's correct that. Good work! My apologies for not catching that one. -- Gwillhickers 16:43, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think its best we keep this issue brief...its basically a tangent that deserves a daughter article, but not much expansion here. I'd keep the section on the will as NPOV as possible...stick with the will(s), that he wanted to have his estate sold to free and educate slaves, including Jefferson's slaves, state that the will(s) were not satisfied and that the money was eventually returned to his heirs at X date. The daughter article can detail the reasons why Jefferson didn't want to be heavily involved in the will(s) and the other aspects of this issue. However, as the section stands right now, its not anything that prevents me from still supporting the article for FA.--MONGO 04:50, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mongo, we've discussed this. The paragraph of getting Kosciuszko secretly out of the country with Jefferson's helps marks an important point in the biography, with or without the will and was restored to the section. As was requested, please discuss these things before making major changes. Many articles share and have overlaping information to some extent. This is good and connects the articles contextually. This is esp true with biographies of famous people in history. Kosciuszko's will is an important topic in the biography, and needs to have more than a dictionary like reference to the affair. FA's require that topics be well covered. As was also mentioned, the section contains only facts, no opinionated conjecture along moral and ethical lines. Again, at this point we need to discuss major changes so we don't have to go back with this. -- Gwillhickers 17:19, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The paragraph,
"In March 1798 Kościuszko received a bundle of letters from Europe. The news in one of them came as a shock, causing him, in his crippled condition, to spring from his couch and limp unassisted to the middle of the room and exclaim to General Anthony Walton White, "I must return at once to Europe!" Kościuszko immediately consulted Thomas Jefferson, who procured a passport for him under a false name and arranged for his secret departure for France. Kościuszko left no word for either his former comrade-in-arms and fellow St. Petersburg prisoner Julian Ursyn Niemcewicz[1] or for his servant, only leaving some money for them.[2][3]"
belongs chronologically, and just plain logically, in the "Later life" section and should be restored to it. A decision was earlier made to set up a separate section on Kościuszko's "Last will", farther down the article, discussing his American will which he drew up as he was leaving the United States in 1798. But discussing detailed circumstances of that departure belongs in the context of his American stay, not clumsily lumped in with the discussion of the will, following "Funerals", 19 years after he actually left America. Nihil novi (talk) 20:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The paragraph chronologically fits well in its original placement, as it is covers what prompted Kosciuszko to make out a will and leave the country. Btw, as I pointed out, the 'Funerals' section should follow the 'Last will' section, as it now does. Again, the article, with the 'Last will' section in its current placement, got the 'okay' from about half a dozen editors. The article has been picked and pecked at more than enough at this point, so let's try to move on. The nomination has been hanging for more than two months now. Numerous 'support' was submitted more than a month ago. Any issues that need addressing at this point should be critical and non opinionated or we're going to be here forever. -- Gwillhickers 05:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Undiscussed changes edit

Since no one bothered to say so in edit history or discuss this with anyone, I didn't realize that the first paragraph in the 'Last will' section had been moved to 'Later life'. Please discuss major changes with fellow editors. If the article keeps changing at the whim of any given editor without a discussion the article is not going to pass. The paragraph in question is much better placed in the 'Last will' section as it directly lead into the text covering Kosciuszko writing out his will. This was discussed with others several times, so that's where it will be returned shortly. If there is a consensus to move the paragraph to 'Later life' section then we can move it there then. Please cooperate with fellow editors here. -- Gwillhickers 17:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The editors of this article had the exact same verbatim paragraph in both sections. That's just plain sloppy and indicates you should solicit an excellent cooyeditor to proofread this. To make what should be an obvious correction doesn't require a lengthy discussion on a talkpage. I am leaning towards advising that this FAC be withdrawn until some issues are worked out.--MONGO 16:49, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The 'Funerals' section should be chronologically placed after the 'Last will' section. Agreed? -- Gwillhickers 17:59, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As there is evidently no objections or reasons not to, I placed the 'Funerals' section after the 'Last will' section, per chronology of section placement. -- Gwillhickers 03:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest withdrawal.

There seems to be a lot of issues with the Last will section. The rest of the article is great, but it might be best to withdraw, fix the problems, and resubmit. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:09, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Every article that is nominated for FA usually has a lot of issues. The section had a couple of minor issues. There are no problems here that warrant withdrawing the nomination. There was a little disagreement as to some wording and the placement of the section, but that was all. We got through it with no BS and editor egos getting in the way of rationality. Further stigmatizing the section as a 'problem' that is impossible to deal with is uncalled for. The article has improved since it got numerous 'support' votes back in mid August. The Kosciuszko article is more than good to go. -- Gwillhickers 03:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article is relatively stable. I think the last will is fine with just one paragraph; NN's edit seems reasonable. The will is now mentioned chronologically, and has a short, dedicated session summarizing the topic - an elegant solution, methinks. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:48, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the later life section there is now was a time/event gap between these two paragraphs:
In March 1798 Kościuszko received a bundle of letters ...
He arrived in Bayonne, France, on June 28, 1798. ...
So as the 'Later life' section read, Kosciuszko recieved a bundle of letters and (leap!) went to France with no mention of the will until we jump back in time to the next section and talk about it. To fix this, I placed the 'Last will' section in between the two paragraphs and added a section/name 'Return to France' in the following paragraph. So now the 'Last will' section still has the one paragraph, but it is chronologically placed in between the events that were outlined in the 'Later life' section. Now the events follow one into the other, and so do the sections.-- Gwillhickers 16:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One of the latest edits left a gap in the events, where the last will belongs. -- Gwillhickers 17:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article's editors, including me, seem to be stalemated about the organization of the last few sections, reverting each other yesterday and today. I don't care all that much and will stop changing it. Novickas (talk) 17:21, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We've all had to make compromises. You've done some great work otherwise, just wish you'd be more 'talkative' when it comes to making major changes. Also, I'm not sure who added the quote about Napoleon being Poland's undertaker. Whoever added that hopefully will know from what source it came. -- Gwillhickers 17:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did, and done: [10]. Bet you peanuts to pennies that you removed this reference a while ago :P (it was still present in the pre-c/e version where I habitually go to retrieve references...). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If it was the same citation found in consecutive sentences I may have. -- Gwillhickers 16:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I took the liberty of removing the first paragraph in Last Will since it was already written verbatim in the Later Life section...I may not have placed it in the best location but it simply didn't fit in the Last Will section IMHO. When I did my review in late August this issue wasn't an issue. I'm going to reread the article in the next day or two and if I see similar problems I may have to reassess my support. I don't want to do that as I would really like to see this article promoted.--MONGO 03:42, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article has gone through a lot of rewording, much of it occurring with no edit summaries or discussions, and imo, some of it not needed. Overall however, the article has improved greatly since everyone gave their support back in mid August. As the Later life, Last will and Return to Europe sections go, they are in their proper order and look fine now imo.
Reminder (to everyone) : When there are several editors actively making changes at the same time it's crucial to leave edit summaries and discuss significant or major changes first. Better to have disagreements on the talk page than an edit war, even if it doesn't exceed 3RR by one particular editor. -- Gwillhickers 16:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now leaning to oppose....50 edits in last three days and some ongoing issues regarding one of two sections indicates the article is still in flux and not stable. I will review again in 5 days.--MONGO 16:40, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Forced image size edit

Why were all the image sizes recently forced so small? I've seen larger images in a dictionary. I returned the lede image to its default size. The other images should be fixed as well. The reader should not have to be forced to break away from the text to adequately view an image as he/she reads along. Images should not be forced small unless there is a good reason to do so. e.g.Image is very large in default size, etc. All the forced sizes may cause FA issues. Perhaps Coemgenus is right and the article be withdrawn from nomination until we can sort all these (new) issues out and a couple contributing editors learn how to cooperate with others editors. When several editors are actively working on a page, the normal, logical and considerate thing to do is discuss major changes. The images should be returned to their default and/or practical sizes. -- Gwillhickers 16:43, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note - as already mentioned several times, please do not use level 3 headers or higher. See the guidelines on top of WP:FAC for all nominators and reviewers. Higher level headers split the main FA-listing at WP:FAC and are disruptive for others (the nomination itself is only a level 3 section). If you have any question on such conventions, please feel free to ask one of the coordinators or on FAC-talk. Thank you. GermanJoe (talk) 17:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Appologies. Force of habit while debating. Won't happen again. -- Gwillhickers 18:13, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The default size of images is set by your preferences, but these are not respected by the Visual Editor, which will use the global 220px default. Wikimedia initially said that everyone should hard-code image sizes, then accepted that this was a bug in the Visual Editor. It hasn't been fixed yet however, so this part of the MOS is currently in abeyance. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:21, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Most readers that come to Wikipedia from an internet search are not registered users and don't even know about Preferences. Often times the default setting simply doesn't cut it. -- Gwillhickers 16:57, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but many of them are on mobile devices, where large images are inconvenient. The mobile version has its own preferences. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it would seem that an image would have to be quite some size to be an inconvenience. In any case, I'll adjust the image sizes to default settings (220px) and any image that is too small or large I'll adjust so it's the same basic size as all the others. As it is, many of the images are forced to tiny sizes. Will wait for any comments first. -- Gwillhickers 02:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have adjusted image sizes to default and practical sizes. The default setting for one image is on the large side, but not too large imo, esp since it's a portrait of Kosciuszko wearing medals of honor, etc. -- Gwillhickers 17:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kosciuszko baptized Catholic edit

Removing info about the names (Andrzej and Tadeusz) given to Kosciuszko at baptism is a mistake. This is basic biographical information and it was sourced with more than a reference to the ambassador's speech, but also by Gardner, 1942 (for Kosciuszko being a Catholic). US Ambassador Krol's speech is now a matter of public record, so it would seem this is more than a reliable source for simple information like baptism. Krol has a Bachelor's degree in History from Harvard University and a Master's degrees in Philosophy and Politics if there is any doubt about his academic capacity. There is also another source for the baptism, Kajencki, 1998, p.54, so we should return this important item using any or all of the three sources mentioned. -- Gwillhickers 12:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead, I was primarily concerned with removing dubious info about dual rite baptism. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:36, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment — This nomination has been running for an exceptionally long time but issues are still ongoing, which are giving rise to stability problems. I know edits to FACs are common and are expected but we have gone beyond prose tweaking. I will be archiving this in a few minutes. Please wait until two weeks after the bot has run before renominating, during which time I hope the remaining issues can be resolved. Graham Colm (talk) 17:51, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ Julian Ursyn Niemcewicz, Under Your Vine and Fig Tree, Mechie J. Budka, editor.
  2. ^ Gardner, 1943, p. 124.
  3. ^ Sulkin. 1944 p.48
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Tadeusz_Kościuszko/archive1&oldid=1075706368"