Untitled

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 02:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]

John I of Poland → John I Albert of Poland - 'John I of Poland' is a name virtually unknown to the world of printed publications (1 page) or academia (no hits). While I would prefer 'Jan I Olbracht', the most popular name (without the 'I' but it's useful), the last RM shown that the communicity strongly prefers the less used by professionals but more friendly to an average reader 'John'. I don't want to dispute that, nor the (IMHO unecessary) addition 'of Poland', but I think that since this king is almost always reffered to in various publications with both his first and second name (Jan Olbracht/John Albert), we should include his second name in our name. Consider: "Jan Olbracht", 333 pages), [http://books.google.com/books?q=%22Jan+I+Olbracht%22&btnG=Search+Books&as_brr=0 "Jan I Olbracht" (9 pages), [http://books.google.com/books?q=%22John+Olbracht%22&btnG=Search+Books&as_brr=0 "John Olbracht" (2 pages), "John I Albert" (5 pages), "John Albert" king Poland (204 pages). Among those books we can find virtually all important publications on Polish history, like Davies or Lukowski. Last but not least, note that Britannica also uses his second name Albert (and a numeral):[1]. Therefore I think that the move to "John I Albert of Poland" should not be controversial: we are retaining all that was won by the last RM, and adding an important part of his name used virtually by all major reference works. PS. Albert vs Olbrycht: Olbrycht is more unique and I think even more popular then Albert, but let's cosnider the less controversial (Polish...) Albert first, and then we can discuss whether we need to talk more about Olbrycht or is Albert enough of a compromise.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Discussion

[edit]
Add any additional comments
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Name as it appears in encyclopedias and dictionaries

[edit]

If you have access to other major English-language reference works, please feel free to add to this list, by including the individual's name as it appears either in an article title or index entry. --Elonka 23:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedias

[edit]

Dictionaries

[edit]

Other reference works

[edit]

What?

[edit]

The article mentions a town named "Kopersztyn". I Googled "Kopersztyn" and got nothing but the sentence used on the article... and vague allusions to it in different languages.... Does it even exist?-- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 03:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello????-- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 17:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the book "Dzieje staroźytne narodu litewskiego: Panowania Kazimierza i Alexandra. Tom Ósmy" is Kopersztyn refered as former Nowe-Koniecpole. [1] referes the name as polish Kopystrzyn. Now it is Kopystyryn in Ukraine.-- Ispaleny (talk) 23:06, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/304671/John-I-Albert

Old engraved portrait versus 18th century portrait painting

[edit]

While the 18th century painting of John I Albert no doubt looks pretty nice, how nice a picture looks should always be secondary to the authenticity and accuracy of a picture. As such, when choosing what picture to use as a portrait in a biographical article on Wikipedia, is it generally best to chose a picture that is dated as close as possible to the time the person lived. The 18th century painting cannot be accurate because it was painted over 200 years after the person in question died. If the painter used a good source for his portrait, then simply use that source as picture for this article. If the painter did not use a source, then the portrait is pure fiction. Omegastar (talk) 16:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA Status

[edit]

@Piotrus:, @Surtsicna:, @GizzyCatBella:, @Aldebaran69:, @Marek69:, @Borsoka: - Dear all, please forgive me for the disturbance but I have just expanded this article considerably and was hoping if you could help me in raising it to a GA Status. All advice and opinions accepted! Feel free to expand it further if you find some spare time. Many thanks! Merangs (talk) 00:53, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a most welcome disturbance. Thank you for your work! I will happily gnome around it. Surtsicna (talk) 09:52, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Merangs Good job. I can only suggest replacing some old sources with new ones: Albertrandy (1827), Benni (1876), Bobrzyński (1893) and few others. Can we not verify the facts they are used for with modern scholarship? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:28, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: - I thought so too, however, modern sources are very scarce. John Albert is a heavily overlooked figure in Polish historiography, omitted wherever possible together with his brother Alexander; most modern sources are based on the ones from the 19th century. I can try and have a dig again, but I doubt it'll be fruitful. Merangs (talk) 15:56, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Merangs That's a fair argument, if we cannot find modern soruces, and old claims are not controversial, it's fine. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:43, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

Well done! Best of luck, I think you will pass GA with flying colors. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:31, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SusanLesch: - Many thanks for your kind words! Took a while to formulate and write the article as sources were limited but tried my best. Any chance you can initiate the review process? Merangs (talk) 17:34, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Afraid no. I have no knowledge of Poland. Good luck. (summoned by a bot) -SusanLesch (talk) 17:42, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, thanks for touching up the article a bit. Highly appreciated! Merangs (talk) 17:46, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:John I Albert/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Borsoka (talk · contribs) 07:14, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, Merangs I am about to start the GA review of the article. I hope I will be able to complete it in a week. Borsoka (talk) 07:14, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

I beg you pardon for the delay. Please find my first comments below. Borsoka (talk) 03:05, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary remarks

[edit]

Birth and family

[edit]
Done. Merangs (talk) 23:11, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just removed the passage as Ladislaus was not Emperor. A kin to German royalty seems too obvious as well, given that his mother was a Habsburg (already outlined earlier in the paragraph). Sigismund was an Emperor so I think that would suffice for the candidature. However, all sources mention that John's second name Albert would contribute to the cause (Albert II was King of the Romans and the second cousin to Frederick III). Merangs (talk) 23:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is in the source. It was the ambition of his parents as his mother was of Imperial Habsburg blood. Perhaps this can be more directly and accurately rephrased as "it was the ambition of his parents[...]" Merangs (talk) 23:11, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Albert was not his first name and it was the intention of his mother, Elizabeth, to stress imperial lineage and his potential candidature. That's given in the source. Merangs (talk) 23:11, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A name cannot secure a candidacy to the Imperial throne especially because no Holy Roman Emperors had been called Albert (Albert I was only king). Borsoka (talk) 02:39, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
John I Albert was not considered for the Imperial throne by any other authority apart from his hopeful mother. That is why I have included the phrases "intention of his mother" and "potential" to become a candidate for the throne. Also, Albert II was the second cousin to HRE Frederick III as outlined in point two. Merangs (talk) 22:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Merangs (talk) 23:11, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- personally, I don't believe that a separate background section is needed, however, I have added the term "background" into the subheading. Merangs (talk) 23:52, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Both, added source. Merangs (talk) 00:21, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed the information about being "disgraced" and a "Hussite" - too off topic and rather captious for a GA article. Merangs (talk) 23:50, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Specified who was proclaimed King of Bohemia. Regarding the query, the source clearly outlined that the Bohemian [noble] assembly elected Vladislaus. Merangs (talk) 01:04, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- removed the passage about him becoming a saint. I also specified that he was Casimir IV's second son and his namesake. Merangs (talk) 01:09, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- changed "inherited" to "proclaimed". Specified Hungary as Vladislaus was already King of Bohemia (though contested by Matthias Corvinus during his lifetime). Merangs (talk) 01:04, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- removed "strong-minded" and clarified that a faction of Hungarian nobles advocated for John Albert to succeed Matthias Corvinus in Hungary. Merangs (talk) 01:04, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A way of saying he retreated back to Poland from the Kingdom of Hungary. Removed it entirely as it is redundant. Merangs (talk) 23:11, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed "Duchy" to "Duke" for comprehension purposes; outlined that John was made duke and was permitted to keep the title for life. As to why Głogów was part of Hungary, one can access the link. I don't think we need to explore that any further and go "off topic". Merangs (talk) 23:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Education

[edit]
Casimir IV was not destined to inherit the throne after Jogaila; he was also poorly educated and most likely illiterate, but it's to much out of context for this article so I deleted it. Merangs (talk) 23:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to past continuous and by Casimir IV (already introduced in previous sentence so adding the numeral is redundant). Merangs (talk) 23:40, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Merangs (talk) 23:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
Done. Merangs (talk) 23:19, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to a brief factual statement "He was initially appointed royal advisor and mentor at the behest of Queen Elizabeth." Merangs (talk) 23:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Buonaccorsi. Done Merangs (talk) 23:07, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did this review stall? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:36, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
About half of my comments has remained unanswered. Borsoka (talk) 04:04, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Borsoka: - sincere apologies but I am currently caught up with work and other duties. @Piotrus: would you be able to help at all? Merangs (talk) 23:37, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Borsoka: - Hi again. I think that I have answered all of the above queries, questions and remarks. Could you please see? Merangs (talk) 01:12, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Merangs: I suggest you should ask for a copyedit at the Guild of Copyeditors ([3]) before I continue my review. Borsoka (talk) 01:47, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Borsoka: - Copy edit has been requested. Merangs (talk) 02:04, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Borsoka: - A copy edit has been completed. Merangs (talk) 20:57, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your notice. I think I can complete the review in Sunday. Borsoka (talk) 14:45, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Resuming the review

[edit]

@Merangs: do you think you will have a chance to deal with my above comments in the near future? Borsoka (talk) 06:22, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Borsoka: - Hi Borsoka, apologies for the delays. Unfortunately, I won't be able to look into it until this weekend. Merangs (talk) 20:56, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I try to complete the review in two days. Borsoka (talk) 14:39, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Merangs: am I wrong when supposing that you are not interested in the nomination any more? Borsoka (talk) 04:03, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Borsoka: - Apologies, but I am unable to complete the above questions alone and within the month due to outside activities and work. As I have received no aid from other Wikipedians linked to WikiProject Poland, I suggest that this nomination comes to a close. Merangs (talk) 19:38, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am really sorry for it but I understand it. RL is sometimes demanding. I hope you will have time to complete the article in the near future. Borsoka (talk) 02:45, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Merangs Just a passing comment that I might have been able to help if I was pinged. I did have this page watchlisted but I wasn't monitoring it. I don't think anyone from WPPOLAND new this was falling behind... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:56, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GOCE - Copy Editing

[edit]

On behalf of the Guild Of Copy Editors, I will be copy editing this article. Merangs has requested the copy edit. Please refrain from editing this article until the copy edit has been completed. 多多123 (talk) 20:37, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit statuses will be posted under this message: 多多123 (talk) 11:05, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Working 多多123 (talk) 11:06, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done 多多123 (talk) 11:51, 16 March 2023 (UTC)多多123 (talk) 11:52, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Categories