Talk:Bolko I the Strict

Name

The name "Bolko I the Strict" seems more correct. Anyway, one English hit for "Bolko I, Duke of Schweidnitz-Jauer" is as popular as one English hit for "Bolko I, Duke of Swidnica".--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Moved by Piotrus from his talk page

This is not the most popular name [in English]. Bolko I Duke of Schweidnitz-Jauer (or variant) is more popular [1]. It also met the expectations of a large number of people about continental ducal titles. If it's the Germanoform style of the name that bothers you, then I guess can respect that given the transnational character of these rulers. But it would only be fair then, on both counts, to move Bolko II of Świdnica to Bolko II the Small. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I will admit that I have no major preference over "of place" and "the adjective", albeit my favorite solution is to have the adjective or both if possible. What about Bolko the adjective x of Świdnica? In that case, Bolko I the Strict of Świdnica? Seems the most informative. For the record, I have no problem with Bolko II the Small. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Bolko I Duke of Schweidnitz-Jauer (or variant) is more popular than 1, getting 9 hits [not one] [2]; the exact form is obviously a wiki-ism. But OK, Bolko I the Strict is more in line with how Polish rulers named on wikipedia. This suggests also though that Bolko II of Świdnica should be moved to Bolko II the Small. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a note: Bolko I was not a Polish ruler but a ruler of a independent duchy in a period of transition. This transition affected the duke too, who called himself "dux Slezie et domino Lewenberch", later also "de Fürstenberc". IMHO this transition should be included somehow since it's vital for the history of Silesia.Karasek (talk) 19:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Added original name

I added original name. It's obvious that he didn't use English name and the original name is notable enough to be included. Since the germanised version of the name occurs very rarely I don't think it is notable enough for inclusion though.--Molobo (talk) 18:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

We don't know his "original name". Our only contemporary sources are seals and documents. Almost all of these sources in Silesia during his time are written in Latin, very few in German, none in Polish. Arguing that the Polish/German/Czech name was his "original name" is therefore pure speculation.

PS: the seal shown on this page provides at least his "original" Latin title: Bolkonis dei gra(tia) dvcis Sl(es)ie et d(omi)ni de Wrstenberch (Wrstenberch = Fürstenberg = Fürstenstein = Książ). Karasek (talk) 19:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bolko I the Strict/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 02:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • The lead of this article is slightly too short. It should be a solid one-paragraph summary of the article, with no new information added. The information on his name and its translations does not need to be repeated in the body, but the information on his parents should be discussed later in the article.
   • There are many short paragraphs in the Life section which make it choppy and harder to read. Please either expand these or combine them with other paragraphs.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • The entire article is almost completely unreferenced. There are many paragraphs in the Life section that have statements that need references. For example, "instead of expected successes" (third paragraph), "to his great surprise" (ninth paragraph), etc. These are just examples, there are other instances.
   • Are the last four items in the References section actually used as references? If not, they should be moved to an External links section. If so, they need more information. Publishers and access dates should be provided at the very least, and authors and publication dates when possible. Also:

   • What makes Complete Genealogy of the House of Piast (third item) a reliable ref? It appears to be self-published.
   • BOLKO I SUROWY (WIELKI, CHWALEBNY, ŚWIDNICKI) (fourth item) needs to note that it is not in English. Also, is it self-published? If so, it's probably not a reliable reference. Also, it should not be in all capital letters.

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, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

This article has some major issues with referencing, and so I am placing it on hold for now. This is not a complete review - I will be waiting for someone to address the above points before I complete a full prose/NPOV/coverage review of the article. I will be watchlisting this page, so if you have any questions, please let me know here. Dana boomer (talk) 03:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

This article has been on hold for a week now, with no edits, despite notifications to the nominator's talk page. The editor has indicated a willingness to work on the article, however, and so I will leave it on hold for an extra two days. If, at that time, no work has taken place, I will have to fail the article's GA nomination. Dana boomer (talk) 02:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

As this article has been on hold for over a week and a half with no improvements, I am going to have to fail the review. When the above concerns have been rectified, this article can be brought back to GAN. Dana boomer (talk) 20:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)