Talk:Ewelina Hańska

Spelling

Most biographies of Balzac (including — in order of publication date — Floyd, Maurois, Gerson, and Robb) spell her name "Eveline" (sometimes with an É, other times without an accent), as does the first footnote in the original Lettres à L'Étrangère. Lawton (1910) uses "Evelina", but it's clearly in the minority (and that text is far from scholarly).

Can anyone explain why it's "Ewelina" here? Would anyone object to moving it to "Éveline"? Scartol • Tok 17:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Pursuant to this discussion at WikiProject Poland, I moved it to "Eveline", but then an anonymous IP moved it back. I will move it again, but I'm worried about other moves. As the sources I will soon add demonstrate, "Eveline" is by far the most common spelling in English-language sources. Scartol • Tok 12:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved to Ewelina Hańska after discussion and approval vote below. This was the most well-supported alternative; I thank everyone involved for your thoughtful participation. - GTBacchus^(talk) 05:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Eveline Hańska → Eveline Hanska – (or Ewelina Hańska or Evelina Hanska) -- I personally don't care which one we use, but Piotrus would like to have this sorted during the FAC process. He wrote:

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).

Thanks in advance for your input. Scartol • Tok 22:58, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support Ewelina Hańska. I believe that Ewelina Hańska, her "real", not anglicized/latinized name. Ewelina Hańska is used both on French and Polish wikis. See my analysis and rationale at the FAC process for details. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support Ewelina Hańska. I would agree that it is the better choice based on naming conventions and the number of Google Books hits. Ajh1492 (talk) 19:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
• Of course, her common name is not any of these, but rather "Madame Hanska," with 1,380 post-1980 English-language Google Book hits. We need a more formal version of her name for the article title, but it should be based on her common name. So Éveline Hanska, her French name. This is the version of her name used by Britannica and it gets 178 post-1980 English language Google Book hits, not to mention 1,180 in French. This compares to 84 post-1980 English language Google Book hits for "Ewelina Hańska" (as well as 213 in French). Kauffner (talk) 09:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• Quibble: if this is her French name, how come fr wiki disagrees, with article at Ewelina Hańska? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• Plus PT:WP (pt:Ewelina Hańska), PL:WP (pl:Ewelina Hańska), and ES:WP (es:Ewelina Hańska) Ajh1492 (talk) 22:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• I don't have access to any of the books used to source this article, but... what form does Robb use? What about Cronin? Don't just make something up, use what the sources give.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 04:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Robb says "Eveline Hanska". Cronin says "Eve Hanska". It is a chapter title. So they both use variations of her French name rather than her Polish name. Kauffner (talk) 07:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Cronin also uses "Eveline Hanska", although "most common" would be "Mme Hanska" (sic), the most popular name variant on Google Books, at whooping 20,000 hits (a nice illustration of the fallacy of "common names"). I am disappointed in his treatment of names, he gives Balzac his diacritic (Honoré) but denies it to Hanska, and his translation of first names is rather appaling (Wenceslas Hanski, Georges Mniszech). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at this ngram. The woman was incredibly famous during La Belle Époque. Kauffner (talk) 19:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, but I am missing the relevance of this claim to this particular discussion? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I know that you don't approve Piotr, but this is why I think that relying on COMMONNAME is a good thing. I'm sure that some people will come here with knowledge that "Ewelina Hańska", or something similar, is "most correct", but the vast majority of people are going to be looking for something on "Eveline Hanska", because that's what they see outside of Wikipedia. Yes, redirects will get everyone to the same page, but the article title itself shouldn't be a surprise to people. If the majority of readers are familiar with "Eveline Hanska", which you don't appear to be denying, then that should be the article title. It should be immediately made clear that this persons birth name is something like "Ewelina Hańska" in the article lead of course, but that's a slightly different subject. If this person didn't have any English language source treatment then we could use (in this instance) whatever the French language sources use, but since there are English sources we should use those.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Just put the article at the correct name and redirects for all the most common spellings. Mention the most common in the lede, I would put a separate section in briefly discussing how she is referred to in literature. Ajh1492 (talk) 20:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

That's the complete antithesis of what we currently are supposed to be doing. See: Wikipedia:Article titles, and more specifically, WP:COMMONNAME for the specifics. The history behind the reasons that the policy is the way it currently is involves all sorts of conflict, which is largely derived from the idea that you're expressing here. Doing what you're suggesting leads to all sorts of issues, whereas doing the exact opposite solves most of those problems (and creates others, but it solves more then it creates, so the majority of people think it's the best thing to do, and most people who disagree appear to at least be willing to go along with it, to date; which is the definition of consensus).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• Hmm - This is a picture of inconclusive, isn't it? I've read the discussion here, as well as the ones here (scroll down to "Naming comment") and here, and I can't discern anything resembling a consensus. As far as I can tell, the viable candidates are Eveline Hanska, Ewelina Hańska, and possibly Madame Hanska. No one has really made an argument in support of the current, hybrid title, so I'd be quite happy to move the page somewhere. Can we get a summary approval vote going here, to help me or another admin close this request?

  I'll set something up, ping a couple of WikiProjects, and see what happens. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Approval survey

Please indicate first choice, other choices if applicable, and a brief reason for your choice. Any choices missing may be added by any editor at any time. Discussion may be added wherever.

Eveline Hanska

• Support: The three main English-language sources for biography about her (Robb, Maurois, Cronin) use this spelling. Scartol • Tok 11:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - would rather keep the current title. Ajh1492 (talk) 18:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
• Weak oppose per Ajh. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - like Ajh and Piotrus. Kmicic (talk) 01:05, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Ewelina Hańska

• Support, real, given name as used in many sources, including all Polish ones, and all other wikis. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support, wiki consistency, plus name used in most Polish and French sources. Ajh1492 (talk) 18:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support, as Ewelina Hańska has an article in Polski Słownik Biograficzny, one of the best biographical dictionary in the world. [1] Kmicic (talk) 01:05, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Madame Hanska

• Strongest possible object. The worst choice, not a given name. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Gets 2,610 post-1980 Google Book hits, compared to 83 for "Ewelina Hańska". We already have Mother Theresa and Father Damien. Kauffner (talk) 08:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - not even close with any accuracy. Ajh1492 (talk) 18:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - We already have Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson and Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington. Hańska wasn't a nun like Mother Theresa. Kmicic (talk) 01:05, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Eveline Hańska (current title)

comments

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Date of birth

Polish Biographical Dictionary (PSB), however, gives her date of birth as 24 December 1800, old style. I have to go the Wiknic now, so I'll see if I can find a working converter later (but please do so before if you can). Also, we need to deal with "Pierrot, p. 14. His certainty is cited to an entry for Adam Rzewuski in the Dictionary of Polish Biography which gives his birth date as 24 December 1804. Eveline was born roughly one year earlier." First, is Dictionary of Polish Biography PSB? This needs to be clarified. Second, Who says that "Eveline was born roughly one year earlier"? Pierrot? PSB? Clarification needed. (Also, note the interesting date convergence - both would be 24 December? Is Pierrot date Old Style?) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:48, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately I do not own the Pierrot book. So I'll go to the university library and check it out for a third time when I am able to do so. Scartol • Tok 17:49, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

All right. In the meantime, using this converter, suggests that 24 December 1804 (Old Style ) is 5 January 1805 (New Style). So PSB agrees that she was born in the 1801-1804 range, too, but adding a note about Old Style date being 1800 would be useful (since old Polish/Russian sources may use Old Style Dates). I do note that 5 January is one day earlier than our 6 January estimate, though. Perhaps a note could be added about conversion, or something... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:22, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Cleaning up family's references

Cleaning family's mess: not all the names have been stanardized to Polish variant, so I've done it myself, I also "detranslated" two names of relatives (husband) from French into their proper Polish names, per PSB and [2]. I gather that the French authors have the traditional and international preference (found in older sources) to translate the names into their own (French) languages, sigh.

I added a sentence that clearly lists her brothers and sisters. The three that have articles on pl wiki are linked (Adam, Henryk, Karolina), with no prejudice to others being linked.

I removed "Her sister Catherine married Prince Wilhelm Radziwiłł at the age of 15 and later became known as an author.<ref>Cronin, pp. 154–155; Pierrot pp. 23–27 and 49–55. Princess Radziwiłł said – in a letter reproduced in Floyd, pp. 203–204 – that she was "quite sure" Eveline was born in 1801 of the Julian calendar.</ref>" As far as I can tell, Catherine Radziwill, nee Katarzyna Rzewuska, was not her sister, but her niece (daughter of her brother Adam). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:48, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Count and Countess

The article claims that Ewelina "born to Count Adam Wawrzyniec Rzewuski and his wife, Countess Justyna Rzewuska". I think that the term (pl:hrabia) an error. Let's see: it is not mention in his article on pl Wikipedia, not in the genealology page ([3]), nor, finally, in PSB. Now, Polish-Lithuanian Commowealth, even under the partitions, had a plethora of unique titles (see Officials in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth), which are hard to translate (which is why most of them have articles like starosta or cześnik, rather then translations). Add to it the fact that Polish nobility often refused to recognize foreign titles, which made some more elitist, but then some were given (particularly in the 18th and 19th centuries, creating real Polish counts and such) - long story short, Polish nobility title are a mess, and some Western authors who don't realize this often will abuse terms like Count or Prince. I think this is the case here. PSB gives her parents the following titles: Adam Wawrzyniec, "kasztelan witebski" (castellan of Vitebsk) and Justyna Rdułtowska, "chorążanka nowogrodzka" (daughter of chorąży of Novograd). Sejm website notes that her father was "marszałek szlachty gubernii mohilewskiej" (marszałek of the Mogilev Governorate szlachta). Pl wikipedia confirms that, gives the exact dates for his castellancy (1790-1793, likely ended with the Second Partition of Poland). It also notes he was a "Russian senator", a bit imprecise title here. I suggest that for now we remove the Count/Countess titles from the article, and replace it with the PSB sourced castellan of Vitebsk for the father; and the marshal if you feel like sourcing to the website (seems reliable). I'd have to look at a more reliable bio for more titles (Polski Słownik Biograficzny 27699: t. 34 s. 94 RZEWUSKI Adam Wawrzyniec (1760-1825) poseł, pisarz polityczny), but I think for the daughter article this should be good enough. PS. PSB does give her first husband (missing an article on pl wiki, Polski Słownik Biograficzny 8212: t. 9 s. 287 HAŃSKI Wacław (1782-1841) marszałek szlachty wołyńskiej ([4]) as "hr.", the abbreviations for the hrabia (count), so at this point I am was open to concluding that she became a countess by marrying a count - but certainly she was not born a countess. PS. Jerzy Mniszech, her daughter's Anna's husband, was a count. Jerzy, of course, not anglicized George... PPS. PSB entry on Wacław Hański has no mention on him being count, sigh. I am having hard time finding whether he had the title. Btw, her brother Adam received the title of Count in 1856, which does confirm further her family didn't have it originally. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

So, to sum it up, I am not sure if we can even call her Countess. I cannot find any reliable sources calling her or her husband hrabia consistently. Actually, I am getting only one hit for Google Books on "Eveline Hańska" countess" and no for "Ewelina Hańska" countess, so I am now strongly in favor of removing all references to counts from this article, with the exception to that of Jerzy Mniszech, who I am seeing mentioned with the title relatively consistently. PS. I get few hits for "Ewelina Hanska" hrabina, but just a few, that I am attributing it to a rare error. Anyway, it doesn't even seem that the sources refer to her with that title often enough for us to discuss this in some "common error" footnote. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:44, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Various issues in need of clarification, suggestions for expansion

Reading the PSB entry, here are some suggestions and issues to be clarified:

• PSB claims that in a 1833 letter, Balzac wrote his first confession of love to her, despite being in a relationship with de Berny. This may be worth mentioning;
• PSB gives the exact date of her September 1833 meeting with Balzac: the 25th;
• Geneva meeting took place from 26 December 1833 to 8 February 1834;
• After May 1835 meeting in Vienna, they would not meet for the next six years. This could be clarified by saying so directly (PSB does so);
• On her religious phase in that period, PSB offers some more details: in particular it is worth noting her religious interest was more geared towards mysticism/sects then mainstream religions. She corresponded with Baroness Barbara von Krüdener, read on Rosicrucianism, martinism and Swedenborgianism. It notes that "Balzac treated this "attack of devition" with the sharpest disapproval". It also notes that most of her relatives were very critical of her infatuation with Balzac, but interestingly enough (as confirmed and even stressed by PSB entry on Wacław (Andrzej Biernacki, Polski Słownik Biograficzny 8212: t. 9 s. 287-288 HAŃSKI Wacław (1782-1841) marszałek szlachty wołyńskiej), he was respected by Wacław himself, with whom he also corresponded on literature)
• "Soon after she arrived in the Russian capital of St. Petersburg" - this was related to her litigation and heritage issues;
• "Anna married Jerzy Mniszech in October" - the 13th, in Wiesbaden;
• Russian authorities (request was made to the chancellor, replied to by the tsar) responding to his request of December 1847 to marry widow Hańska, replied on 2 July 1849 that he can do so but Hańska cannot keep her lands. This seems worth mentioning in the "In any case, a wedding would be impossible without approval from the Tsar" para;
• "Balzac returned to Wierzchownia in October, and immediately fell ill." - ill how? PSB mentions heart troubles;
• in the last months, when Balzac started loosing his vision, she acted as his secretary;
• "Later years and death". PSB stresses that she succesfully took care of Balzack's debt, and was responsible for sponsoring new editons of his works. She was involved in editing some of his works herself, in particular she edited and finished "Chłopi" (Peasants? sadly PSB gives only Polish translated titles and I am having verifying this one). PSB mentions that literary experts consider her work on that quite respectful;
• "Hańska and her daughter spent the remainder of their fortune on fine clothing and jewelry. Jerzy, meanwhile, succumbed to mental disorders and died in 1881, leaving behind a trail of debts.". Which sources accuse Hańska of being spendthrift? PSB notes that it was her daughter Anna, who wasted the family's fortune, not her mother.
• 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;
• 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". --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:10, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Piotrus, I can't tell you how much I appreciate the time and energy you have spent on this article. It's clear that you care very deeply for article about Poland and people from Poland, and this article is better for your dedication.

But I don't have the time, energy, or interest in going through all of these details yet again. I spent a year of my life researching this article, digging through a half-dozen texts for all the documentation and detail. If you would like to add information from the PSB or other sources, by all means please do so. However, I feel as though you are seeking a standard of perfection to which I (a high-school English teacher enjoying some desperately-needed summertime weeks of leisure) cannot devote myself.

Further, the comments above (and elsewhere) suggest at best a cursory read of the article I have written. To wit: Balzac's affair with Mme. De Berny was a complicated series of events, and I considered including it here. But then I decided I wanted to stay focused on Mme. Hanska. However, I would have thought the following sentence would be sufficient: "Balzac's biographers agree that, despite his vows of loyalty to Hańska, he conducted affairs with several women during the 1830s." Apparently not.

Similarly, you note that Balzac and Hanska didn't meet for many years after their Vienna rendezvous, and that this should be included in the article. But the article already includes the following sentence: "In late July 1843 Balzac visited her in St. Petersburg, the first time they had seen one another in eight years."

I would like to see this article achieve FA status, which I still -- despite your complaints about the supposed lack of sufficient citations -- believe meets the criteria. However, at this point I am simply too exhausted to pursue these quibbles. Scartol • Tok 21:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

• Berny: it is just that PSB mentions her by name in Hańska biography. I am not insisting on adding that, just wanted to raise the issue. If you think it is unnecessary, I will not insist on that.
• The other sentence it seems I had missed, and I stand corrected.
• I wanted to give you, the principal author, a chance to incorporate the above at your leisure, but I can certainly do it myself if you'd prefer so.
• Further comments: I just realized that the claim Hanski suffered from ill health and depression (in lead) is unreferenced and not repeated in text. Per WP:LEAD, lead should not include unique information, but summarize what is present elsewhere in the article. Also, claim that he was "20 years her senior" is imprecise, it should be changed to "about 20 years", due to confusion about her date of birth (Hański was born in 1782, PSB did not have day or month). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• PS. I've stubbed Rzewuski family and Wacław Hański; I'll see if I can expand them in the near future. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I've added the sections, feel free to expand. Names in the second one are in some cases only my clarifications, as Czery did not list full biography and often listed just surnames (see my post above for what names he listed, exactly). Still, I think I was able to identify all of them correctly. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

B-class review for WP:POLAND: passed

It goes without saying, but this article is written well enough for B-class standard. Other than tiny details, lack of discussion of literary significance is a major issue remaining for GA+ level IMHO. I'd like to see improvement in density of references, but I'll not object due to that (I however cannot fully support the article for that reason... perhaps I will do a weak support vote, I'll have to think about it). Either way, very good job (but in future please consider referencing all sentences). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:00, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Shall I assume you missed the fourth paragraph in Eveline_Hańska#Ha.C5.84ski.27s_death? The part which describes how she wrote the story that became his novel Modeste Mignon? Or the bit in Eveline_Hańska#Meeting_Balzac, which details her serving as the inspiration for his novel Seraphita? Or the bit at the end of that section which explains that he hoped for stylistic comments on his works in progress, but instead received only moral questions?

Do you believe that the article needs an entire section (which would only consist of moving these bits of info around, because they're about the only significant mentions I could find about such matters) devoted to her influence on his writing? Scartol • Tok 21:24, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I believe that those items should be gathered together and expanded in a dedicated section. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tea with toast (talk • message • contribs • count • logs • email) 00:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Problems needing to be addressed

Thus far, I am impressed by the depth of information and the number of references used. There are a few areas of confusion that I would like to have worked out before I pass my review.

1. In the first sentence of the section "Marriage to Hański" the link to Wierzchownia links to a disambiguation page; I am hoping you can find the specific page it should direct to.

1. Done.

1. In the section "Becoming 'the Stranger'", the second paragraph mentions a sister "Caroline". Is this the same sister "Karolina" that is mentioned earlier in the article? If so, please keep the name spelling consistent.

1. Done.

1. Section: "Hański's death" Was the cause of his death known?

1. Not as far as I can tell, and I've written a bigger bio of him for pl wiki.

1. Same section, last paragraph: "Her marriage to Balzac would have to wait.". The wording sounds a bit colloquial, and the first half of the paragraph is slightly confusing since two different marriages are being discussed and the wording is vague. Please clarify these sentences so that it can be more clearly understood that Hanska cannot marry Balzac until her daughter is married or else Anna looses her inheritance.

1. I hope that does it.

1. Section "Second marriage and widowhood", I find the first 3 paragraphs to be very confusing in terms of the time line. There are so many different places being mentioned and so much happening between the time she presumably conceives (April 1846?) and then miscarries in November. Please try to simplify where possible and introduce more dates if necessary to improve understanding.

1. I am not sure what can be fixed beyond this. More dates would be good. I skimmed the sources but they are not clear on when the child was conceived. If you think those paras are confusing, try reading the biography by Robb... :>

1. I'm confused a bit about their eventual marriage. The article mentions (but does not give much detail about) a secret wedding that was suppose to have taken place, but then they get married much later? Is there a specific wedding date that can be given?

1. Well, the article mentions "On 14 March 1850" later. The secret wedding sentence was added by the primary author of this article before I became involved ([5]); sadly, he did not reference every single sentence, and bundling citations does not help. The sentence that followed was referenced as "Maurois, pp. 476 and 485; Cronin, p. 190; Robb, p. 371." (it has been moved now, which may create false impression the "secret marriage" claim comes from PSB - it does not. Robb does not mention the secret marriage. Maurois has no preview on Google Books and Cronin, only snippets, neither of those lends itself to online verification. As I don't consider this matter important enough to spend my time on a trip to a library, we can remove this sentence (in a sad testament to the fact that every single sentence should be referenced, or such problems will crop out, I get so tired of telling people that...sorry if this comment seems rant-like).

1. Same section: "Disaster struck in November, when Hańska suffered a miscarriage. Traumatized, she wrote to Balzac with the news." The word choice seems over dramatic for an encyclopedia. While there is a lot of Balzac in the article, there is no need to make the impression that he wrote it. :)

1. Would you be so kind and rewrite it in a more encyclopedic fashion? I agree with you to a degree, but I also find this prose better than what I'd usually create instead.

1. Was the cause of her death known? Any speculation from biographers?

1. Not in the material I've read (PSB), or I'd have added it otherwise. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Please address these issues, and then I will continue with the review. --Tea with toast (話) 00:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Final review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   I am impressed by the breadth of scope!

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Very appropriate and tastefully done! I enjoy that it brings in images of other relevant figures of the time period with whom she associated with. That helps to put things in perspective of the lifestyle she had.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Thank you for addressing many of the issues I set out. The remaining issues are minor and do not prevent me from giving this article a hearty pass. However, they may need to be tidied up if this article is to be nominated for FA assessment. Great job! --Tea with toast (話) 01:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)