Jump to content

Talk:Partition Sejm/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 17:50, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Piotrus, I'll be glad to take this one. Initial comments in the next 1-5 days. Thanks as always for your amazing work on Polish history topics. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:50, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow soon! -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Piotrus, just wanted to ping you a reminder about this one. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:41, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Khazar2, sorry, I missed that. I'll get to this within the next 48h and ping you when I am done. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:06, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Checklist

[edit]

That seems to take care of my comments above; starting checklist now, probably just about ready to pass. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:09, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). I'm concerned http://historia.pgi.pl/rozbiorowy.php may not be a reliable source--it looks self-published, but Google Translate is murky, so I may be misunderstanding. What do you think?
2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment. That's a pass--congrats!

Piotrus, I think this is just about ready to pass. I have one more concern noted above. Thanks again for all your work on this! I've learned quite a bit of Polish history from reading your contributions... -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Khazar2: Agreed, replaced it with more reliable refs: [1]. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:41, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]