Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Eveline Hańska/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 SandyGeorgia 19:10, 4 July 2011 [1].

Eveline Hańska[edit]

Eveline Hańska (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Scartol • Tok 12:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have done exhaustive research on Mme. Hańska, best known for her marriage to Honoré de Balzac. The article has been peer reviewed by Nikkimaria and copyedited by Bejinhan. Thanks in advance for your consideration! Scartol • Tok 12:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
  • The lead is rather short
  • Wikipedia:LEAD#Length says: "15,000–30,000 characters = Two or three paragraphs [for lead]". This article is 25kB, so three paragraphs seems right. Scartol • Tok 19:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The style remains rather clunky: "Their family had deep roots in Polish nobility, with generations known for wealth and military prowess" and "He was rewarded with a comfortable position in the ranks of the empire. Moving between assignments in Kiev, St. Petersburg, and elsewhere,..." - where "positions" would be better, i think. "Like her brothers and sisters, Hańska was educated by her parents about family lineage and religion.", "Once a year, the family visited Kiev for a market gathering, ....", "He spent most of the day supervising the grounds, by some accounts with an iron fist.", "She spent her time reading the books her husband imported from faraway lands",
  • I changed the first sentence to: "Their family was established as Polish nobility, known for wealth and military prowess." In the second example, I think "position" would be inaccurate; a position strikes me as something more long-lasting, while an assignment is more fitting for the sort of short-term work he did in various places.
  • I have to say that I don't see what's wrong with the other items quoted. Scartol • Tok 19:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Were the family "magnates", former members of the Diet, or minor nobility? Still an important distinction at this date I think.
  • The sources don't differentiate. Scartol • Tok 19:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "dinnerware from China" - are you sure? 1819 or so is late for Chinese export porcelain to be in use in a very grand home, with French, German & English porcelain more fashionable. You don't just mean "china" as a general term for porcelain?
  • Gerson (p. 152) writes: "His rugs were imported from the Ottoman Empire, his plates came from China and his silver had been wrought in England." Scartol • Tok 19:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More later

  • Thanks for your comments! Scartol • Tok 19:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod (talk) 16:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Current "Reference" section is a mixed of cited and uncited sources - these should be in separate sections
  • Sorry, I meant to do this before submitting. Uncited sources moved to "Further reading" section. Scartol • Tok 19:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)It shh[reply]
  • Do we have a date or author for the Dictionary of Polish Biography entry cited by Pierrot?
  • There is no such work as "Dictionary of Polish Biography" (according to Google Books). There is, however, a Polish Biographical Dictionary (PSB), and "Ewelina Hanska" is mentioned in it. What does, exactly, Pierrot cite? Could it be a mistranslation? I think it is likely. PS. PSB in the blurb gives her date of birth as 1800. This may merit a note in the lead (I see a discussion in the bio, also, the range should be exteneded to 1800 per PBS). PPS. In either case, PSB is a major reference work that should be consulted. If somebody can get a copy of the PSB article, I could review it and use it to add to the article. I think User:Picus viridis had access to PSB, and was able to make scans... I'd suggest that the author drops him a note and asks for help. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • So requested. Without consulting the PSB itself (and as someone who does not read Polish), I don't feel comfortable adding a citation to it. Perhaps someone else can do so? (Also I assume "exteneded to 1800 per PBS" should have been "extended to 1800 per PSB"?) Scartol • Tok 03:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 28: is this Maurois' translation?
  • The book was written in French by Maurois, and translated by Norman Denny. I've added the translator's name to the book's listing. Scartol • Tok 19:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed, along with several others. Thanks for your attention to detail! Scartol • Tok 19:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd suggest using {{fr icon}} instead of the word "French" following the work. I assume it means French language... the template is nicer. Upon further review, I am disappointed with the poor treatment of Polish/Ukrainian names; the article suffers from the usage of obsolete sources, which (sigh) translate and mangle Slavic names. It should be Wacław Hański, not Wenceslas Hański (the mixture of latinized name and proper Polish surname with a diacritic is particularly jarring; also note that the same name if properly rendered for her grandfather, Wacław Rzewuski, in the article); ditto for Justyna Rzewuska, not Justine Rzewuski. Also, the article needs more ilinks, to start with, the ones noted above, also for pl:Adam Wawrzyniec Rzewuski and others (example: Rzewuski family is notable (pl:Rzewuscy), Polish nobility is notable, general Ivan Ossipovitch Witt is, her brother Adam is (pl:Adam Rzewuski (generał rosyjski)). The lack of links indicates a possible fear of WP:RED - please work on it :) Red is good. On the subject of family, you may find this genealogy website of interest. Reading on, "Aline and Pauline" are anglicized again - those shoudl be "Alina and Paulina" instead. Lastly, her sister pl:Karolina Sobańska is notable and also deserves a mention. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've made most of the changes you recommend. I can assure you that the lack of red links is not due to fear, but lack of familiarity with Polish nobility. I simply don't know which names are notable enough for full articles and which are not. Scartol • Tok 03:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you, looks much better. Btw, upon rereadign my comment above, I realize it might have sounded a bit harsh. If I was annoyed, it was at printed sources, not at you :) I certainly understand not everyone is an expert on all esoteric subjects, that's why we do collaborative work :) PS. How about adding a genealogy tree section? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, it felt a bit harsh. I'm fine with a genealogy tree section, but I have no idea how to begin such a thing. Scartol • Tok 22:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Naming comment. Actually, one more comment, and rather important at that. The article's name is weird. Google Books gives 0 hits for "Eveline Hańska", which seems a weird mixture of anglicized/frenchified first name and proper Polish surname (with a diacritic). It seems that GBooks has finally and very recently implemented a diacritic search, so we can look at some numbers. "Eveline Hanska" gives us 114 hits, sans diacritics. If we want to use diacritics, let's go all the way for Évelyne Hańska (GBooks gives 5 hits for that). I'd personally strongly prefer "Ewelina Hańska", the proper Polish name (84 Google Book hits), which is also used on French Wikipedia (fr:Ewelina Hańska), and of course on Polish Wiki (pl:Ewelina Hańska). Some other variants that I'd not recommend, but are nonetheless more popular than the current 0 hits variant, include "Evelina Hanska" (184 hits), "Evalina Hanska" (2 hits). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - looking through the article, the sourcing seems a little weak especially on the following passages . . .
Their family was established as Polish nobility, known for wealth and military prowess
Hańska's great-grandfather, Wacław Rzewuski, was a famous writer and Grand Crown Hetman.
When the Russian Empire gained control of lands owned by the family through the Partitions of Poland at the end of the 18th century, Rzewuski swore his allegiance to Catherine II.
Like her brothers and sisters, Hańska was educated by her parents about family lineage and religion. Her mother was a devout Catholic, but her father also taught the children about Voltairian rationality. The family was secluded in Pohrebyszcze, with only occasional trips away.
Hańska was closest to her brother Henryk, who later became famous for his work in the genre of Polish folk literature known as gawęda. They shared a passion for philosophical discussions, especially related to love and religion. Hańska's other brothers, Adam and Ernest, both pursued military careers.
She later married a man 34 years her senior, a landowner from Podolie named Jérôme Sobański. They separated after two years, and she began a series of passionate affairs with some of her many suitors. These included the Russian general Ivan Ossipovitch Witt, the Polish poet Adam Mickiewicz, and the Russian writer Alexander Pushkin.
Hańska's younger sisters, Alina and Paulina, married early into comfortable upper-class families. Alina married a wealthy landowner from Smilavichy, whose father had gained his fortune by managing property for the Ogiński family.
In the first five years of their marriage, Hańska gave birth to five children, all but one of whom died as infants.
I have added citations to every single one of these sentences as requested. I will state for the record (and then step back from this FAC until its fate is decided by others) that I now consider those paragraphs to be beautiful examples of hideous WP:CITECLUTTER. Scartol • Tok 22:01, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ought to think about breaking Family and early life into two sections, it's a bit confusing right now.
Not much on Jean Gigoux
Did you go through any prior reviews with this article? It would have benefited from at least a GA-Review first. Is this a WikiCup nomination? Ajh1492 (talk) 19:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. These two sentences — "Their family was established as Polish nobility, known for wealth and military prowess. One ancestor had imprisoned his own mother in a tower to extract his part of an inheritance." — are sourced to Eveline_Hańska#cite_note-1 ("Cronin, p. 153; Robb, p. 226; Korwin-Piotrowska (1938), p. 21.") The other items you mention are all sourced to footnotes that might not appear after each specific sentence, but to the next note after it. (Otherwise the article would be cluttered with a note after every sentence.)
As noted at the top of this page, the article was peer reviewed and received a copyedit before I brought it here. I did not put it through a GA review, because I have done the vast majority of the writing on thirteen other articles that are currently Featured. I figured I knew what was required for FA-quality articles, and that the PR and copyedit processes would enlighten me on what I lacked. (But given the intense scrutiny during this FAC on questions of Polish nobility and almost total silence on the other 90% of the article, it would seem that I'm somehow mistaken.)
"Family and early life" currently consists of four paragraphs (three medium-length and one long). Splitting it into two sections of two paragraphs each strikes me as awkward.
I included everything meaningful I could find about Gigoux in the biographies listed. If you have other sources that provide additional meaningful information, please let me know. Scartol • Tok 16:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extended discussion moved to talk page (A). Nikkimaria (talk) 19:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The heading title Becoming L'Étrangère is not clear? What is the significance? Ajh1492 (talk) 22:16, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The photo caption Hańska spent her last thirty years in a relationship with the painter Jean Gigoux.[89] is not properly sourced. The reference does not seem relevant, or at minimum very clear. Ajh1492 (talk) 22:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am this close (pinching index finger and thumb close together) to walking away from this FAC and the process entirely, and never coming back.
Piotrus, I understand your concern when things get added, but the idea of citing every sentence is — pardon my French — ludicrous. Wikipedia:CITEBUNDLE suggests that a citation at the end of a paragraph should indicate which info comes from where, which makes sense to me. But I don't intend to go back and do all the research for this article all over again (which would be required).
AJH: Did you read the section "Becoming L'Étrangère"? Because that section explains quite clearly (at least to me and the other people who reviewed this article before it came to FAC) what it means. As for the citation for the caption of the Gigoux picture, I don't understand how Footnote #89 ("Robb, pp. 415–416; Maurois, pp. 557–558; Cronin, p. 212.") is ambiguous. The additional note refers to the other place where this same footnote applies, in the text of the article itself. I could make it into two different citations, but that might clutter things a bit.
I'm referencing the fact that you're trying to be cute with the section title, you ought to make it a little more plain in English. Ajh1492 (talk) 00:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to be a jerk, but this has been a very difficult process so far, and I'm starting to wonder if it's worth the headaches. (This is why Wikipedia loses good editors, right?) Scartol • Tok 00:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia looses good editors due to incivility. Please don't ask me my opinion on editors who leave for other reasons, as it would be offtopic, and irrelevant. I'll help improve the article based on PSB materials, whether it will be good enough for FA, I don't know, and if you unwilling to meet reference standards I prefer, at the very least I will not be able to support this. Perhaps the FA director will see it as meeting FA standards anyway, but for me it does not meet referencing standards we expect to see in WikiProject Poland B/GA class articles. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then why did you certify it as a B-class article? I went to get the Pierrot book again today, and I will provide individual-sentence citations for the paragraph about her ancestors as requested. Scartol • Tok 21:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Having reread this really good article again, I've decided that it meets B-class criteria after all. For B-class, I see referencing all sentences as helpful, bit not required, and majority of other issues have been addressed. So yes, I do believe now the article is at least B-class (and I'll note again my criteria on issues like referencing are much stricter than those of many others). Once the issues from the talk page are addressed, I'll consider casting my vote. I don't expect that I'll oppose, I may just decide not to support due to the references; the article may meet our modern FA standards, it may just not be meeting my own FA standards - but I recognize that this should not result in an oppose vote. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extended discussion moved to talk (B). Nikkimaria (talk) 19:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would like to thank Scartol on following on my suggestion and obtaining PSB entry materials. I have presented my analysis at Talk:Eveline Hańska#Various issues in need of clarification, suggestions for expansion. Mostly, I suggest small corrections and additions, but one big issue emerged: the article misses a section on Hańska's influence on Balzac in the literary realm. I believe this article cannot progress beyond B-class (comprehensiveness) until such a section is added. It is likely that what I wrote based on PSB can be adopted into such section, or at least start it. PS. Thanks to the materials, I am off to stub an entry on her first husband, Wacław Hański :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly support. This is a beautiful article. I can't understand why anyone wouldn't think that it was a FA. Scartol has addressed every concern and issue that has been brought up, and has given reasonable explanations for not following all of them. It is comprehensive and is well researched and sourced. The prose is as good, if not better, than most current FAs. I highly recommend that it be passed. Christine (talk) 11:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, he hasn't addressed every concern. He did a good job writing the articles, but just check his reply at the section linked above, which boils down to "your issues, so please fix them yourself". I may yet support this article, but first I have to find time to fix various issues that the nominator seems unwilling to (and I don't mean the reference issue, but various clarifications and details for comprehensiveness, or compliance with WP:LEAD). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He hasn't addressed all the concerns, I still think the article needs more inline citations per my comments above. I also think some the heading titles are way to esoteric and need to be written in more common terminology. I also agree about the article not complying with WP:LEAD. Ajh1492 (talk) 21:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AJH, I changed the section heading you complained about ("Becoming L'Étrangère" is now "Becoming 'The Stranger'", even though that French word has several meanings which are lost with the simplistic English translation). Which other headings are "way to (sic) esoteric and need to be written in more common terminology"? Scartol • Tok 11:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished expanding the article with various details from PSB, but I cannot consider supporting - and will have to oppose - until the issues of comprehensiveness are addressed. To quote from article's talk:

  • PSB has a very interesting section at the end on literary immortality of Ewelina in Balzac's works. It mentions that she was the inspiration of La Fosseue, Mme Claes, Modesta Mignon, Ursule Mirouet, Adelina Houlot, and especially Eugenia Grandet and Mme de Mortsauf. At the same time it disagrees that negative characters of Fedora and ladly Dudley are based on her. It mentions numerous characters named Eve or Eveline, and dedications to her. Next, it mentions that her daughter Anna, sister Alina, aunt Rozalia, her first love (Tadeusz Wyleżyński), and others, were incorporated into his works. Since they met, Poland, Polish topics, Polish names, Polis mysticism started to appear much more frequently in his works: Hoene Wroński, Grabianka, gen. Chodkiewicz, for example;
  • As noted on the talk page, much of this information is incorporated into the article text itself. I was reluctant to include too much information about Balzac's work, since this is an article on Mme. Hanska herself, not M. Balzac. Scartol • Tok 11:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Next, PSB mentions that she was a controversial figure. She has been criticized by some biographers and scholars (H. Bordeaux, Mirbeau and Nowaczyński, J. I. Kraszewski, Ch. Leger, P. Descaves), and praised by others (Bertault, Bouteron, Barbey d'Aurevilly, Korwin-Piotrowska, Boy-Żeleński, Tadeusz Grabowski, miss Floyd, Billy (sic!). According to PSB, one of the "greatest experts on Balzac", [[[Spoelberch de Lovenjoul]], called her "one of the best women of the epoch". For many, she had a crucial impact on Balzac's works and the "Great Balzac" emerges after meeting her in early 1830s. PSB ends by saying: "However one could analyze her and their relationship, the impact of love for her on Balzac's was persistent, all-enveloping and decisive".
  • I'm not sure what the complaint is here. Do you believe the article requires a section on her legacy, or her treatment in various biographies? Because — again — I've tried to incorporate those things into the text of the article itself. Scartol • Tok 11:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe the article requires a section on her legacy in his works, and on her treatment in various biographies, to be fully comprehensive. That elements of that are mixed in the other sections is good, but I think if PSB (which is an encyclopedia) has dedicated sections (paragraphs) on those issues, so should we. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, if you want something done right... I've added the missing sections now. It would be nice to see what others think, just the two-three of us talking is not what I expected from this review :( --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead states: Hański, who was 20 years her senior, suffered from ill health and lifelong depression. The second paragraph in the section Marriage to Hanski states: He was generally dour, and lived with a depressed condition that Hańska referred to as "blue devils". There is a citation immediately following this sentence.
  • I believe this is yet another example of — as I mentioned on the talk page — at best a cursory read of the article. Scartol • Tok 11:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, those are different sentences. In the reference sentence, where is the "ill health" part? Where is the "lifelong" claim for his depression? Also, I asked you to add the "about" the age difference; no matter how I do my math, Hanski's YOB in 1782, Hanska's YOB of 1801-1806 does not lend itself to a precise calculation like that. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I clipped the lead sentence to just say "Hański, who was 20 years her senior, suffered from depression."
  • As for the age difference: Robb says "more than twenty years her senior" (p. 227); Maurois says "twenty-two years older" (p. 219), and Cronin says "twenty-seven years older than Eve" (p. 155). I believe the wording in the article is an accurate depiction of the English-language sources on the subject, and I worry that we may be veering into the territory of Original Research if we use different wording. Scartol • Tok 11:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Picswiss_NE-20-30.jpg - linking to a Google search as a source is not the best plan, is there a more direct link? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Eveline_Hańska/archive1&oldid=1088118417"