Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:01, 9 September 2007

Kraków

previous FAC

New improvements include: a much deeper copyedit with extended list of quality references complemented by inline citations, especially scholarly print sources and university/conference publications for the History, Economy, Government and Geography sections. The lead was expanded as an overview, summarizing most important points of the article. More informative captions were added to pictures. TOC was reduced in size due to greatly improved sections like Etymology, Economics, Transport, Geography and climate, Sports and the Administrative districts for which I've written two dozen new "daughter" articles (eight of them featured as DYK's). Since the last nomination all sections, especially the ones mentioned above, have been expanded upon according to reliable sources and balanced out in proportion to their prominence whenever necessary. Sections Government and Education were again, rewritten from scratch in a comprehensive manner. Images in all sections have been exchanged for quality ones based on new photo galleries in Wikimedia. The templates listed were also improved. The entire topic has been thoroughly covered in accordance with the featured article criteria not to mention numerous constructive comments provided by reviewers. --Poeticbent talk 16:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support Object. The article has been significantly improved, and I believe in terms of content coverage it is comprehensive. But inline citations are still lacking. I count at least 15 paras w/out a single citation, some sections near the end are completly w/out citations. I will see what I can do about adding some citations, but I don't think I can find all that are needed.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I will gladly help with all that. Please indicate where you find additional citations would be helpful, and I will start with the search right away. --Poeticbent talk 17:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I will work on the history section; please add at least one ref for each paragraph in the following sections that has no citations.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  •  Done All sections and all paragraphs regardless of size are now supported with inline citations (almost 30 new items between the two of us). Additional sources can be found in most "daughter" articles. Thank you, Piotrus. --Poeticbent talk 23:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Indeed, great job. Changed to support.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Not so great :-(( First of all see my comments on citations on the Talk:Kraków page. Secondly, it seems that the editors were bent on finding a different source as a reference for each, no matter how trivial, point. For example, the reference to the history of Jagiellonian Uni. was pointing to about half a sentence on a York (Canada) University page on student exchange. There is no shortage of primary sources (i.e. not regurgitated webpages), some of them are used in the article (e.g. A Concise History of Poland or Encyklopedia Krakowa) - why they are not used more extensively, possibly with page nnn added to facilitate searching? --Jotel 14:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Weak oppose: although it looks nice and is almost ready for FA, I'm not very sure about some things: 1. is the list of airlines serving the Kraków airport so important in the main article? 2. I think list of Sejm members from Kraków constituency belongs to some sub-article. 3. I'm not also very sure if various budget details (except for general ones) aren't better for detailed article. MarkBA 15:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• •  Done These are excellent comments. Thanks. The whole paragraph on airport has been revamped accordingly. Section Economy (including city budget) has just been rewritten with new features and only general information about detail. The list of Sejm members from Section Government has been turned into a sub-article and replaced with relevant data. --Poeticbent talk 18:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
    • MOS breach – refs should immediately follow word, phrase or punctuation. Please also check and add missing retrieval dates as necessary to web sources. I can't work out for what is good comparing Kraków's population with voivodeship or nation-wide ones. I'd like to see some more detail on purely Kraków statistics and, if possible, some historical population. MarkBA 19:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Oh, and I'd suggest some re-arranging, particularly in Symbols and twin cities section (so ref list won't be blocked) or in Culture section. MarkBA 20:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  •  Done MOS breach has been fixed and section Symbols re-aranged. I removed regional and national statistics from section Demographics and replaced them with local ones going back 30 years, including new relevant data about population density in various districts. --Poeticbent talk 00:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. There is an ongoing revert-war on the page. Some folks prefer to remove any mention of the fact that, unlike Warsaw or Dresden, Krakow was spared the ravages of WWII owing to the well-calculated manoeuvre of Ivan Konev. Furthermore, this vital fact from the city's history is replaced with commonplace rant about "Stalinist atrocities". I don't think the article should be promoted as long as this dispute is not resolved. --Ghirla 13:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The above fact is mentioned with wording that sounds neutral at present. The particulars of that fortunate though still debated episode in city's history are being worked on by editors in a "daughter" article called History of Krakow. The final take, I believe, will probably remain neutral, with only general historical highlights for the section as per FA criteria. --Poeticbent talk 15:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I believe that a stable compromise has been reached; as Poeticbent noted, controversial details were split off to subarticle and them main article should be stable.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Neutral - This is generally an excellent article but I have a couple of reservations. First, Poeticbent, something you can and should do on your own is to bring the history up to date. I know there's a daughter article, and that's where this topic should be developed in full, but the city's history did not stop in the Bierut era. Probably 3-4 sentences will be enough. Second, and this involves Molobo, Piotrus, Irpen and all the usual suspects: do find a compromise version because the article should be relatively stable. (As an aside, Ghirlandajo: the mass rape, pillage and murder were real. No reason to dismiss mention of them as a "commonplace rant about 'Stalinist atrocities'", complete with scare quotes, though if your concern was purely an NPOV one I can respect that.) Third, maybe something on crime? How safe is the city, and do we have statistics on major offences? Finally, maybe the religious demographics. A table would be nice showing their evolution, but at least try to give present-day numbers (I assume most everyone's Catholic, but the word "Catholic" doesn't even appear in the article. It should). These are minor concerns, though, and I'm ready to support when they're addressed. Biruitorul 03:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  •  Doing... A new paragraph on crime and public safety with official statistics and local sources has been added to section Government. --Poeticbent talk 20:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Very close, but not quite yet. I agree with Biruitorul that a section on crime might be a good addition, and I definitely support adding a section about religious demographics and any related important historical/cultural information. Such a section is (IMHO) a good addition to any city or country article, but especially here since Poland is one of the more religious countries in Europe (at least from what I can tell.) The earlier disputed bit about the Red Army at the end of WW2 seems to be in pretty good shape right now, not too biased towards either side. It could stand a bit more detail though. All in all a very good article and just a hair's breadth away from getting my support vote. K. Lásztocska 04:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  •  Doing... I feel inspired and can only hope that I won’t run out of time before having the opportunity to address your comments. All of them are very good. I will proceed one step at a time all the way down to the last suggestion on your collective list. We’ll see how much time it is going to take but it’s most certainly worth it. --Poeticbent talk 14:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Not yet. First of all, it requires a proofread for content:
  • Did Napoleon really found the Duchy of Warsaw in 1815, as the article now says? On which of the Hundred Days did he do so? (Note: I doubt this is the date of the fall of the Duchy either; the Allies were at Leipzig by 1813.)
  • The sentence in which this stands should be recast. Final prepositions are not forbidden, as the superstitious think; but it is clumsy.
  • Is the Biennial Graphics Festival really an annual event?

  There are probably others.

• Second, we need to have the naming debate. The Polish Misplaced Pages uses pl:Nowy Jork and pl:Londyn; we really should Use English and say Cracow; it's embarassing not to. (This may require a decision to overrule the present guideline to accomplish its purpose; this is separate from other naming debates, in which it has been ignored altogether.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I rather strongly disagree that "Cracow" is the proper name to use for this article. "Krakow" (usually without the diacritical, but whatever) is how I've always seen it in modern English-language publications and thus apparently is (modern) common parlance in English. K. Lásztocska 02:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• •  Done Thank you Pmanderson for your insightful comments. The wrong date, the final preposition and the Biennial have been fixed. Btw, the Duchy of Warsaw remainded in existence for a short period following Napoleon's ruinous retreat from Moscow and was partitioned again at the Congress of Vienna in 19(8)15. --Poeticbent talk 00:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Addendum: There's nothing as reassuring in Misplaced Pages as the participation of even more contributors in our ongoing discussions. I'd like to encourage you Pmanderson to allow for this article to be acknowledged for what it is worth and brought to the attention of outside viewers in the process of refining our WP:NCGN guidelines. --Poeticbent talk 18:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Congress of Vienna in 1915 ???--Jotel 09:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

 Done Oops, sorry. I meant 1815 of course. --Poeticbent talk 18:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• Fixes needed - hi. looks good. I've begun massaging the prose a bit to improve flow as it is clunky in places and needs to be more polished before it can get across the FA finish line (well, in my opinion anyway). I felt it was too time-consuming to list all examples - happy for me to continue? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

See here :-) --Jotel 12:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Hahaha - ok. I'm doing a bit more but it's late here (Australia) and I need to sleep. Some of the prose really needs some more copyediting but it is improving. The end is in sight :) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support—But can you audit the spelling out of large numbers? I see "11", but "five thousand"; then "30,000". No period at end of captions that are not complete sentences (MOS). Tony 01:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support— prose vastly improved :) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)