Talk:Juliusz Słowacki/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 15:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found

Linkrot: none found Jezhotwells (talk) 15:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The prose passes muster, but would be improved by copy-editing throughout to make it flow better.

   The lead does not fully summarise the article, see WP:LEAD

   The Life section would benefit from breaking down into subsections, e.g. Early life, Literary career, Later years

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   References are in a variety of formats. Consistency in citing is required. Linking to book titles in Google books is not very helpful, unless there is a link to the exact page available. Full publisher, author and date details are missing from some cites. Some foreign language references are missing the language parameter.

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):

   Captioned and licensed.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   On hold for seven days for issues above to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

   OK, I think this passes muster now. I am happy to list it. Congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 18:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The article has already went through a prose improving copy-editing by Nihil Novi. I don't have any other editor to ask...

I've expanded lead, I hope it is sufficient now.

I added theree logical subsections to bio.

References should be consistent, I used [1] for most books; the few that didn't (from pl wiki mostly) should be now in the same format. Cite book doesn't seem to support page urls, only book urls, so this format seems to be the one possible. It should be consistent now for all the books, and all the elinks should be consistent as well. I added the missing language templates, let me know what else can be fixed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)