Talk:Sigismund Danielewicz/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Grnrchst (talk · contribs) 13:30, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Early life

• If he travelled to the United States in the late 1870s, then that means he spent 30 years of his life in Poland, but there's almost no detail about that here. Do we know anything about his life in Poland? Or do all sources focus on his time in America?
  • I haven't been able to find anything whatsoever about his life in Poland. I assume that would require knowing enough Polish to even know where to start looking, which I don't. I'll poke around a bit just in case, though.
• No need for the duplicate citation to Rosenbaum 2009 after "Congress Poland".
  • Fixed.

Labor organizing

In Hawaii

• All of the sources in this section are to newspapers. Are there any historical sources that cover this period of Danielewicz's activities?
  • Not really. I've exchanged emails on the subject with Kenyon Zimmer, who is extensively cited here – he says he's only located retroactive mentions of Danielewicz's time in Hawaii, but gave me one such mention, which I've now cited in this section.

In San Francisco

• "Trades' assembly" redirects to Labor Party (United States, 19th century). Is this correct for the context its used in this article?
  • No – thanks for catching that. It's the nickname of the Representative Assembly of Trades and Labor Unions, which needs an article.
• Could provide a more specific link to Depression of 1882–1885, for "depression".
  • Done
• "San Francisco International Workingmen's Association (IWA) Should probably say "San Francisco branch of the International Workingmen's Association (IWA)".
  • Clarified with similar wording
• "Danielewicz was serving as secretary of the IWA's central committee." Of the local San Francisco branch or the IWA in general?
  • Looks like it was San Francisco. Clarified.
• "At a West Coast conference [...]" This is a very long run-on sentence and should probably be broken up a bit.
  • Done.

Later activity and death

• How did Danielewicz become associated with anarchism? Right now there's no clear explanation. Was he always an anarchist? Did he become one after working in the labor movement?
  • I haven't found any clear explanation. My assumption is that his alienation from the organized labor scene pushed him to become more radical, but I have no source for that, so I wouldn't want to hint at it in the article.
• "Danielewicz knew Yiddish" This was already mentioned in "Early life", there's no reason to repeat the information.
  • Fixed.
• "at one point publishing a translation of an article" I'm guessing the translation was from Yiddish to English?
  • Yes, clarified.
• arguing that "'their harvest' will probably be the gallows" Does he mean that the workers will be hanged or that the enemies of the workers would be?
  • The workers. Clarified.
• Danielewicz is mentioned by name a lot in this section. Consider replacing his name with pronouns, where it's already clear who you're referring to.
  • Done
• "he additionally met" Maybe "also" instead of "additionally"?
  • Done
• "he described himself as a libertarian socialist" Source says "anti-state socialist", not "libertarian socialist". While I think it's fine to link to the article on libertarian socialism, we should use the words he used.
  • Fixed.

Legacy

• No notes.

Lead and infobox

• Think "in San Francisco" can be cut from the opening sentence.
  • Definitely!
• "Polish-born" Not Polish American?
  • I have no source calling him American or noting his citizenship, so I'm not sure. I'll go with "a Polish-born labor organizer in the United States and Hawaii" for now and wait for your thoughts.
• "After an 1885 speech [...]" This is all mentioned in the subsequent paragraphs, so it could be cut. Although given it's part of what makes him notable, I'd say it could be reduced to ", known for his advocacy against anti-Chinese sentiment in the American labor movement." or something similar.
  • Got it!
• Parts of the second and third paragraphs could probably be reduced slightly for concision, but it's not important.
• I don't think the explanatory footnote in the infobox is needed, as it's already mentioned in the "later activity and death" section.
  • Fixed.
• Any information on the location of his birth and/or death? Even if it's just "Poland" and "United States", that's ok.
  • None, unfortunately. He almost certainly died in Los Angeles, given that he lived, worked, and was buried there – but I have no source so I'd rather not say for sure.

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Overall this is a decent article, with some minor issues here and there.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   No spelling mistakes. A couple minor grammatical issues here and there that could be tightened up.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Manual of style is followed quite closely.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   All references clearly laid out.

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   All citations are reliable. There's one section that draws exclusively from 19th-century newspapers, but this isn't a major issue, as they're all verifiable.

   C. It contains no original research:

   Only one case found of words being twisted, but a very minor case.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Earwig only flags direct and attributed quotes.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   There's some gaps in his biography that really ought to be filled if they can be. It reads very odd to me that no information is provided about his life in Poland.

   I'll assume good faith on this and pass it, as the nominator has found no additional information and has indicated a willingness to look further.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   A couple cases in the "later activity" section where it focuses a bit too closely on the publications he works on, rather than on the subject specifically. But as these publications don't yet have their own articles, I can let this slide.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   No clear violations of neutrality.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   No reversions since its creation in 2021.

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:

   His photograph and patent are both in the public domain in the United States, as they were published before 1928.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Images properly captioned. Alt text is provided for the photograph but not of the patent. If alt text can be provided, that'd be excellent, although I understand it's difficult to describe what is shown here.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Holding for now, until the holes in Danielewicz's biography are looked into. If nothing else can be found, then I'll pass this, but it should at least be looked into. Other than that, this is a very quality article and I found it very interesting to read. Excellent work! --Grnrchst (talk) 13:30, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

   Thanks so much for the review, Grnrchst! Really appreciate it. I've made changes as noted above, if you want to take another look. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 00:42, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

   No worries! Thanks for addressing all of these points. If you haven't found any additional information on his time in Poland, then there's not really any more that can be done about that (at least without going through Polish sources). I'll go ahead and pass the article now. Excellent work on this article and congratulations on the GA! --Grnrchst (talk) 08:57, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.