Talk:Łódź insurrection

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleŁódź insurrection has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 10, 2008Good article nomineeListed
May 9, 2008Good article reassessmentDelisted
June 29, 2011Good article nomineeListed
December 18, 2011WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on October 15, 2007.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that the Łódź insurrection was one of the largest disturbances of the Russian Revolution of 1905?
Current status: Good article


Hidden away[edit]

Why are Lodz insurrection and Lodz Insurrection redlinks? Gene Nygaard 06:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because they shouldn't be. :) Jeltz talk 08:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing it. Gene Nygaard 13:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

Lead mentions it was the largest disturbance, aftermath section mentions it was one of the largest. Background section needs more info about the start of the Russian Revolution - failure in Russo-Japanese war needs to be mentioned in addition to the massacre of 22 January. --Doopdoop (talk) 21:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Issues addressed, I hope.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some more remaining issues. Consider mentioning worsening economic conditions before the insurrection. Casualties of May 1st 1905 demonstration in Łódź might also deserve a mention. Ethnic composition of insurrection casualties is also a relevant detail (Według raportów naczelnika żandarmerii powiatu łódzkiego zabito 151 cywilów - 55 Polaków, 79 Żydów i 17 Niemców ). Russian Duma was established after the events described in the article, yet it is mentioned in the background section. Abbreviation PPS is not defined.

Aftermath section - consider moving Ostrowiec Republic sentence to the revolution in the Kingdom of Poland (1905-1907) article. May demonstration in Warsaw probably refers to the 1905, but is presented in the aftermath (should be in the background). Not really sure, but the establishment of Duma, boycott of the elections by PPS might be mentioned in the Aftermath section.

Wikipedia:MOSDEF requires an explanation of word "Duma". "Revolution of 1905 in Polish paintings" picture gallery probably belongs to the revolution in the Kingdom of Poland (1905-1907) article. If you leave these paintings here, please add English translations of picture names and for Masłowski painting provide a short description of what is depicted. --Doopdoop (talk) 21:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All valid points, I will try to address them as time permits.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed most of the issues; I definitely would like to create revolution in the Kingdom of Poland (1905-1907) in the near future and split some material from here to that parent article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One other thing, you may wish to reformat the citations from books to use page #'s, like we did for Battle of Arras (1917) Cheers, and good job on a difficult topic!Cam (Chat) 21:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The citations here use page numbers, albeit in a different citation format.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to get your comment about those issues that you haven't adressed. I believe Duma was established in late 1905, so according to chronological order it should not be mentioned in the background section. What is your opinion about mentioning ethnic composition of insurgents? Could you check the date of the May demonstrations in Warsaw that are mentioned in the aftermath section (if it is 1905 it should go into background section, not into aftermath). --Doopdoop (talk) 22:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Duma, I don't have access to Urbankowski right now, but I believe what he meant is that while the Duma might not have yet existed, the plans and demands for it were well known (after all, it's not like it appeared out of thin air surprising everybody with the novelty of the idea in August 1905). Hence, National Democrats supported the idea of Polish representation in the Russian to-be-created parliamentary system, while the nationalist socialists of Piłsudski were much less interested in that idea.
I have no objections if somebody wants to add the ethnic composition of the fatalities, I do remember Davies citing it. That said, I would like to learn what is it based on - I have also seen much less precise estimates (such as the "over 200 fatalities" cited in the current article).
There were quite a few demonstrations in Warsaw around that time. I will be moving this information to the newly created Revolution in the Kingdom of Poland (1905-1907) soon in any case.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you OK with my latest edits? One source for the ethnic composition of the fatalities is [1]. --Doopdoop (talk) 19:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; I am ok with those changes. Btw, I have finished expanding the revolution article, you may want to look over it.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted, as it meets all good article criteria. --Doopdoop (talk) 21:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment[edit]

See Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Łódź insurrection (1905)/1.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant?[edit]

This seems to me irreleant - moved from article to here for discussion. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In September 1905 Juliusz Karol Kunitzer, owner of the Heintzel & Kunitzer firm, was killed by two workers in the streets of Łódź.[1]
The politically-motivated assassination of a leading industrialist is hardly "irrelevant". It was organized by the PPS, obviously part of the insurrection. HerkusMonte (talk) 11:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess. Can you find any information on why he was assassinated? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He is described as a prototype of a capitalist exploiter, who didn't care much for his employees and always paid less than other industrialists of Łódź did. HerkusMonte (talk) 18:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you add this to his bio we are working on? I think we can DYK it, too. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If we add this information the fact that he was infamous for both oppressive working conditions and cooperating with Russian forces needs to be mentioned as well.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please add this to his bio, possibly here as well - but remember about referencing. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 14:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Added to this bio, with references.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:29, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Łódź insurrection (1905)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ajh1492 (talk) 16:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs some work before it becomes a Good Article.

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    see below
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Review Completed


COMMENTS
So far I have the following comments. Ajh1492 (talk) 21:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lede needs to be much more comprehensive wrt the article subject checkY
  • Move the references out of the Lede into the appropriate section of the article checkY
  • Isn't there an appropriate insurrection infobox template? checkY
  • How did the Russo-Japanese War damage the economy of the Kingdom of Poland? Was it from the war itself or the peace that Teddy R. negotiated? [replied below]
  • Do you have a reference for "In the 19th century, Łódź had been a major Polish industrial center, heavily urbanized and industrialized, and a stronghold of the socialist movement."? checkY
  • need lang-pl tag on "endecja" checkY
  • Do you have any more detail on the murder of Jerzy Grabczyński any why it is considered a potential flashpoint? [replied below]
  • The picture caption states Anarcho-Communists, any relation to the Chernoe-Znamia groups founded in Bialystok in 1903? [will look into]
  • What was the affect on the relationship between Piłsudski's PPS and those loyal to Dmowski? [will look into]
I'm in no hurry to close the review. I'll keep looking through it and post any other things I see. Ajh1492 (talk) 17:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look into various issues; but I don't think that the effect of the RJW on Polish economy is important enough to be discussed in this article on any detail. In the larger Revolution in the Kingdom of Poland (1905–1907), article, yes. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was a question in my mind since you made reference to it. Would you consider this article as a "child" of Revolution in the Kingdom of Poland (1905–1907) Ajh1492 (talk) 03:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Quite so (like a battle is child to a war article). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 07:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Jerzy Grabczyński, I don't see anything else of any significance in the sources I can find.
Regarding Chernoe-Znamia, there were many groups like that in Poland and really, Europe. We need to improve an article on the anarchism in Poland.
The sources don't really discuss the effect on local groups, but their relation likely deteriorated. This is something better discussed at JP/RD/PPS/ND articles. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:54, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made some slight modifications with the images, added some links and other tweaks. Otherwise it's "Good". Ajh1492 (talk) 21:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ New York Times, 1 October 1905
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Łódź_insurrection&oldid=1215254495"