Talk:Robinson Crusoes of Warsaw/GA1

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

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Sp33dyphil (talk · contribs) 06:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So... where is the review? I understand taking a few minutes, or hours, but days...? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 19:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  • Can the lead be lengthened?
  • Access dates missing from five links.
  • Add alt text to images (strongly recommended).
  • "who, after the end" "by Nazi Germany, decided to stay" note the commas
  • Why isn't "Armia Krajowa" italicised?
  • What does "SS", as in "SS Brigadeführer", mean?
  • No need to add Ltd to publishers.
  • Location of publishers?
  • Where are the sources for the notes?
  • There shouldn't be an image aligned to the left right under "Number and demographics".
  • Stuffed-up reference formatting before "by Szymon Rogoźinski".
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  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:

I think I addressed most of these, except for the expansion of the lede. For access dates, it is my understanding that these are not necessary, particularly in the case where a source is offline or a book on google books. Generally I only put those in when I use websites or stuff on websites on sources (sometimes with automated edits, these fields get put into the template even though they're not relevant/necessary). I added alt text to most of the images and will add it to the other one or two in a sec. I have to think about how to expand the lede since it already summarizes the article pretty well. Volunteer Marek  03:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded the lede a bit. Let me know if it's sufficient. Generally I think the purpose of the lede is to summarize and draw the reader in, not repeat all the details of the main text, so I tend to go with a short "Abstract". Volunteer Marek  17:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In case there are any issues that need urgent fixing, I'll watchlist the nomination and try to help with it as well. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 18:06, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need to add Ltd to publishers. - the singular instance of this removed. ???
  • Location of publishers? - These are not required even for FAs. There was one instance where location was listed.
  • Where are the sources for the notes? - In the sentence which the notes refer to. I didn't double-cite the individual notes and the text itself, but I can if this is desired.
  • There shouldn't be an image aligned to the left right under "Number and demographics". - Fixed (though I generally disagree with this style suggestion, here and elsewhere)
  • Stuffed-up reference formatting before "by Szymon Rogoźinski". - good catch. Fixed.

 Volunteer Marek  02:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A week is about to pass. So, pass? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 02:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Robinson_Crusoes_of_Warsaw/GA1&oldid=1137161167"