Talk:Bolesław Prus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Bolesław Prus has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
March 9, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.7
 This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

A request has been made for this article to be copyedited by the League of Copyeditors. The progress of its reviewers is recorded below. The League is always in need of editors with a good grasp of English to review articles. Visit the Project page if you are interested in helping.
Add comments

Contents

[edit] Missing Boleslaw Prus "Wikisource" and "Wikiquote."

There were English-language (in addition to Polish language) "Wikisource" and "Wikiquote" sections relating to Boleslaw Prus before his name got Unicoded in the title to the "correct" "Bolesław Prus." When the two sections first disappeared, I reverted "Bolesław Prus" in the article title to the "incorrect" English spelling ("l" instead of "ł"), and they reappeared. What can be done to restore the two sections now? logologist 19:05, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure where the problem is. The two links are in the External links section... Halibutt 07:32, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
(Above problem is long resolved.) logologist|Talk 06:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Version 0.7

I'd really like to include this, but I'd like to see a couple of things done first:

  • Add a few inline citations, at suitable points throughout the article. Even 4 or 5 would make a difference.
  • Get rid of the dashes in the "Life" section - I'm bad for overusing dashes myself - as you can see.

Thanks, Walkerma 04:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. Further criticisms welcomed. Nihil novi 04:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
This looks much better, thanks! The only remaining work I can see (as a casual, non-expert reviewer) would be some copyediting of the prose - a handful of the sentences are rather clumsy, with a lot of commas. I did a couple myself. The comparative lit paragraph is a tricky one, I can't really see another way to do that without that really long sentence, so I'd say it was OK. Generally it looks fine to me, and the inline citations make this a much stronger article! Thanks, Walkerma 06:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
In coming days I will look at the text again from the standpoint of further copyediting. Thank you for taking time, in the midst of your pressing obligations, to review the article. It made all the difference! Nihil novi 09:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup tag

The article has recently been augmented and edited and has received inline citations. Would anyone object to removal of the "cleanup" tag? Nihil novi 22:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I would say "yes" - though I didn't tag it! Walkerma 06:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and removed the tag. I think it has served its purpose. Nihil novi 09:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Improvement

I think the biography of Bolesław Prus should be improved. This article can achieve GA status. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Images

This biography had too many irrelevant images. I have removed several irrelevant images. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Automatic peer review suggestions

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • Consider removing links that add little to the article or that have been repeated in close proximity to other links to the same article, as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and WP:CONTEXT. Guides recommend having greater than 3% words in links, but be sure not to overlink words just to add more links.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
  • If this article is about a person, please add {{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 11 inches, use 11 inches, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 11 inches.[?]
  • Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.[?]
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • it has been
    • apparently
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe that most of the above items have previously been considered, and that the article is ready for Good-Article review. Nihil novi (talk) 03:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the article is ready for GA review. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External links

There is only one external link. There should be more external links. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

More could be included, especially if they are more useful than the existing one. Do you know of any? Nihil novi (talk) 09:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Encyclopædia Britannica [1]. Can I include it? Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
This item is a bit misleading in places, as when it states that "Prus gradually changed from a journalistic career to fiction..." (he continued working as a journalist to practically his dying day).
Also, the 1996 volume of The Sins of Childhood and Other Stories hardly deserves mention, as it is very badly translated.
A few such reservations aside, I suppose we may as well include this E.B. Weak as it is, it is perhaps better than nothing. Nihil novi (talk) 10:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I have included it. As you said, it is perhaps better than nothing. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I have added several more.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pseudonym

The pseudonym of Aleksander Głowacki was Bolesław Prus. I think we should mention that in the lead. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

If you say that Bolesław Prus was "born Aleksander Głowacki," it is tantamount to saying that "Prus" was Głowacki's pseudonym; and this wording gets around the awkwardness of saying that a pseudonym is a novelist, etc. Nihil novi (talk) 10:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I've added a statement to the lead about Prus' pseudonym. That should make the matter clearer. Nihil novi (talk) 21:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I have made some necessary changes in the infobox. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citation

Please look at the following citation:

  • Edward Pieścikowski, Bolesław Prus, p. 148.

Is Bolesław Prus a book? Is it a Polish book or an English book? Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Bolesław Prus is the title of a book (a biography of Prus) by Edward Pieścikowski. Readers can tell that Bolesław Prus is a title because it is italicized.
Readers will find the full bibliographic information in the References section, where the book is found to have been published in Warsaw, and therefore by default is in Polish.
Probably there are some advantages to bibliographic templates that I am not aware of. I have, however, often found them awkward to use, with various items clumsily jammed into inappropriate compartments or left out altogether. Nihil novi (talk) 04:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, we can use the citation template when it is appropriate. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Few problems

The following statement is problematic:

"His "Weekly Chronicles," spanning forty years (and since reprinted in twenty volumes), would help prepare the ground for the extraordinary 20th-century blossoming of Polish science and especially mathematics."

The above statement can be included in the biography only if someone can cite a reliable source. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

One more point: Can we consider 'Newspaper column' as a literary genre? I don't think so. I would like to know the views of other users. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Much depends on who's writing the columns. In Prus' hands, it was a literary genre. But I won't object if you prefer to delete it from the infobox. Nihil novi (talk) 08:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
In Prus' hands, it was a literary genre. However, generally 'Newspaper column' is not considered as a literary genre. I removed it from the infobox. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
One more question: What was the religion of Bolesław Prus? Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
In a superficial sense, he did not separate himself from the majority of his compatriots. In a deeper sense, one might say his religion was science and the pursuit of knowledge. I wouldn't put him down for a "religion" in the infobox. Nihil novi (talk) 08:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply, Nihil novi. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ISBN number

Please provide the ISBN number for the following books:

  • Szweykowski, Zygmunt (1972). Twórczość Bolesława Prusa (The Art of Bolesław Prus), 2nd edition, Warsaw: Państwowy Instytut Wydawniczy.
  • Tokarzówna, Krystyna; Stanisław Fita (1969). in Szweykowski, Zygmunt (ed.): Bolesław Prus, 1847-1912: Kalendarz życia i twórczości (Bolesław Prus, 1847-1912: a Calendar of His Life and Work). Warsaw: Państwowy Instytut Wydawniczy.
  • Pauszer-Klonowska, Gabriela (1962). Ostatnia miłość w życiu Bolesława Prusa (The Last Love in the Life of Bolesław Prus). Warsaw: Państwowy Instytut Wydawniczy.
  • Fita, Stanisław (ed.) (1962). Wspomnienia o Bolesławie Prusie (Reminiscences about Bolesław Prus). Warsaw: Państwowy Instytut Wydawniczy.
  • Melkowski, Stefan. Poglądy estetyczne i działalność krytycznoliteracka Bolesława Prusa (Bolesław Prus' Esthetic Views and Literary-Critical Activity). Warsaw: Państwowy Instytut Wydawniczy, 1963.
  • Wróblewski, Zbigniew (1984). To samo ramię (The Same Hand). Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Ministerstwa Obrony Narodowej.
ISBN 83-11-07127-6
  • Pieścikowski, Edward (1985). Bolesław Prus, 2nd edition, Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.
ISBN 83-01-05593-6
  • Tyszkiewicz, Teresa (1971). Bolesław Prus. Warsaw: Państwowe Zakłady Wydawnictw Szkolnych.

Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Wróblewski and Pieścikowski, as stated above. The remaining books have no ISBN. Nihil novi (talk) 06:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Review by Piotrus (not a GA Review!)

  • I don't like the 'Chief novels' section. I would suggest retitling it to list of works and try to put a comprehensive list of his works there.
  • 'Novels and stories' section is somewhat misleading in 'biography'; personally I prefer a clear chronological biography and a non-biographies sections that discuss works of the author (see for example Max Weber)
  • Per above, I think 'Commemorations' should be merged into 'legacy' (perhaps as a subsection with its own heading)
Done. The material does work better this way. Nihil novi (talk) 07:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Per above, same applies to 'Comparative literature'. It would be great if that section could list some prominent works analyzing Prus' life and works, see here and here for suggestions.
Ditto, I've merged the core comparative-literature material into the "Legacy" section. Again, an improvement. Nihil novi (talk) 07:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • A ship was named after him; I guess this could be noted?
Done. Nihil novi (talk) 07:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Overall, it is a good article. I would like to see some improvements before Featuring, but it seems to me it fills the GA requirements. Good job! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Lots of constructive ideas here to consider.
Some questions come to mind:
A "comprehensive list" of Prus' works, depending on inclusion criteria, might run to hundreds or even thousands of items. How to select them?
As Tadeusz Boy-Żeleński observed, "Prus has no biography." Arguably, his writings are his biography; the two are fairly inseparable. How to write a meaningful biography without discussing, however cursorily, his works? Nihil novi (talk) 08:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
If the list is too long, it should be split off, like list of Max Weber works. At some point we should have complete and comprehensive list of works of every notable author.
While I prefer to separate works from biography, I am not going to argue that point, particularly as I don't consider myself Prus' expert.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Not a review from me either, but a quick suggestion: there seem to be too many images in this article, many of which are not necessarily logically-arranged. Consider moving more of them to the Images and Other Media link to Wikimedia Commons and being a bit more choosy on which ones are used on this page. Just a suggestion, feel free to ignore. --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. Nihil novi (talk) 07:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions. For now, I've removed an unprepossessing portrait by Stanisław Witkiewicz. Nihil novi (talk) 04:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA on hold

This article is pretty close to GA, it just needs two things fixed: First, it needs a copy-edit from someone who isn't familiar with the subject. Several sections, including the lead and the Commemorations section, read choppily. Second, I'm confused by the placement of in-line citations. Citations should come after the information they cover. Several sections seem uncited but I suspect that the citation has been misplaced. Don't leave information "hanging". Always have a citation after presenting information. Wrad (talk) 00:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The citations do follow the information. Perhaps additional citations would be desirable; if so, suggestions would be appreciated, by paragraph, sentence or specific item of information. Nihil novi (talk) 03:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Here you go: The "secondary school" bit in the first section. The final paragraph and a half of the second section. Third para. of the third. Fourth of fourth. The Comparative literature section. Lastly, several statements in the Commemorations section. Wrad (talk) 03:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestions. 06:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Masterpiece2000 (talk • contribs)
I've added the proposed references, and some additional information. Thanks for the suggestions. Nihil novi (talk) 11:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Referencing is better now. The prose is still a little fragmented. I would suggest putting up a request at WP:LOCE for help on this. Wrad (talk) 00:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, there are few flaws in the biography. However, I think the article is good enough for the GA status. For the FA status, some more work is needed. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 07:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm putting it up at LOCE. It shouldn't take them too long to respond. Wrad (talk) 01:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm passing it now. There are a few spots, especially the list at the end, that need more work, but I still think it's a GA. Wrad (talk) 01:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Beginning copyedit for choppiness

I worked on the beginning of the commemorations section. I think more information is needed--what were the organizations that were named for him? Jacqke (talk) 20:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

In looking at the section and trying to figure a way to organize it, I am beginning to think it would be better to use titles (portraits, statues, named for Prus), and put the individual items as bullets beneath the titles. Good? Bad Idea? Jacqke (talk) 20:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the very helpful edits and suggestions. I will try to locate more specific information. Nihil novi (talk) 08:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I've taken your suggestion and reworked the memorials into bullet points. I think the information does work much better this way. Nihil novi (talk) 06:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Outside Editor

Nihil Novi invited me to look at this article and perhaps do some editing. I have made some copy edits, but I also have a few questions. 1) In the section on Journalism, I'm not sure I see the connection between his adherence to Positivism and his taking of a pen-name. The structure seems to indicate that those are linked concepts, but I don't see it. 2) The fact that Poland had been partitioned out of of existence nearly a century earlier seems extraneous to the discussion of Prus's daily paper. 3) I have used Prus's rather than Prus' as the possessive, because Prus is not a plural noun. I think that is the correct usage in American English, but it may vary regionally. 4) I was a little confused by the line "Today Prus's essential biography is still to be found in his nonfiction and fiction writings." Does that mean that no one has written it, or than his writings are his biography--more important than the events of his life--or something else? 5) The "Comparative Literature" section seems a little thin compared to the rest. It seems like one person (Kasparek?) has sought to draw parallels between Prus and Bierce. And although those parallels may well exist, I'm not sure that they are sufficiently notable. Maybe one or two sentences in in "Legacy" could be sufficient mention of this coincidence. Otherwise I think the article is good. It makes me want to read one of his novels. I think I may have done some of this concurrently with Jacqke above, so apologies if there were conflicts. maxsch (talk) 20:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the edits and insightful suggestions, all of which I've incorporated. Nihil novi (talk) 08:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Bolesław Prus" GA

My thanks to all who have contributed to this article's recent improvement, thereby qualifying it for good-article status—most particularly, to Jacqke, Masterpiece2000, Mathiasrex, Maxschmelling, Midnightdreary, Piotrus, Walkerma, Wrad. Nihil novi (talk) 03:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Great news! And, I would like to thank you for your great effort. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of works by Bolesław Prus

I have created a new list called List of works by Bolesław Prus. This list is modeled after List of Max Weber works. I would like other users to contribute. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I have redirected the list to the section 'Notable works by Bolesław Prus'. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

At some point it will have to be split out again, I think.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, if the section 'Notable works by Bolesław Prus' becomes very long, it may be split out again. However, I think the section will not be very long. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FA?

I wonder if the article is ready to be submitted to WP:FAC? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think we should add more information. I also feel that the article is a little bias towards Prus. Some critical comments about Prus should be included in the article. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Any suggestions? Nihil novi (talk) 07:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'd like to see some more English academic references discussing Prus.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 07:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

If you run into any, let me know. Nihil novi (talk) 08:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

I think this article is a little bias towards Prus. According to this article, The Outpost, The Doll, The New Women, and Pharaoh are the best novels of Prus.

I am not from Poland and I don't have much information about Prus. However, with the help of books.google.com, I have an access to one reliable source. I have a limited access to the book The History of Polish Literature (by Czesław Miłosz). According to Milosz, the novel The New Women can be called an artistic failure perhaps because Prus seems to have known little about women. According to Milosz, The Outpost, The Doll, and Pharaoh are the best novels of Prus. This is an example of bias.

I also feel that we should mention few things about the novels in the biography. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I have added criticism. I also feel that few things about the phase "great questions of the day" should be mentioned in the article. I think the article is ready for the FA status. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism by Milosz

I am adding the criticism of The New Women by Czesław Miłosz. He was a Nobel laureate. His criticism is necessary. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)