Talk:Mieczysław Jagielski/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up soon. Dana boomer (talk) 23:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
In the second paragraph of the "Deputy Prime Minister" section, you say "...on Poland's economic policies between 1971 and the time in which he lost his position." I guess I'm not sure which position-losing you're referring to. Was it in 1975 when he lost his position as Chairman of the Planning Committee? If so, could you say something like "...between 1971 and 1975, when he lost his position as Chairman of the Planning Committee." to make it more clear?

Please standardize the way dates are presented. In a few spots (once in the article that I could find and a few times in the infobox) dates are presented as day month year. In most places in the article and a couple of spots in the infobox, dates are presented as month day, year. I don't care which way you go, just make it the same every time, please.

The "Gdańsk negotiations" section is a bit top-heavy with quotations. Would it be possible for some of these to be integrated into the text, please?

Could you expand on the award he recieved? The date he received it, what the award is for, why it's a special thing to receive it, etc.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Overall, this is a very nice article, and a great example of collaboration between editors. There are a few things that I would like to see addressed before I pass the article to GA status, so I am placing this review on hold for the moment. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 00:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Everything looks good so far. Before I pass the article, however, I would like to see a ref for the new information added in the Awards section. This is especially needed because you have a quote, and because there is new information being presented about him being given a title. Dana boomer (talk) 21:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for not replying sooner to the above post. For some reason, the post didn't transclude to the talk page, which is what I have been watching. I'm afraid I haven't been able to find cites for the info I added regarding the award, save for the fact that it was the highest civil decoration. Can the article still pass? Terrakyte (talk) 03:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The unreferenced text was simply a description of the award.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Everything looks good, so I'm going to pass the article to GA status. My concern with the unreferenced text was mainly that there was a direct quotation and a claim (that he gained a new nickname/title after being given the award) included in the unreferenced portion. If it had just been a non-direct quote description of the award I wouldn't have even mentioned it :) Anyway, it's a moot point now, as the section has been referenced. Very nice work, you two! Dana boomer (talk) 18:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the review, and thank you for your compliment. Terrakyte (talk) 19:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]