Talk:Bolesław III Wrymouth/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

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 shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 19:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    • The entire article needs a thorough copyedit. However, this will probably come after the sourcing, since much of the time, with extensive sourcing comes extensive prose changes. There are multiple spots where words are missing, words are used incorrectly, or the grammar is just poor. I realize that the primary editor of the article is not a native English speaker, so I am more than willing to help with this after the sourcing has been improved.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    • The main problem that this article is the lack of references. Much of the article is completely unsourced, and this includes information that could be easily challenged or is not common knowledge. For example, the "Division of the Realm" section is completely unsourced, and includes statements such as "It is difficult to believe however". Who finds it difficult to believe? And "allowing Boleslaw and Zbigniew to co-rule greatly alarmed Sieciech,". Who says it "greatly alarmed" him? The entire article is scattered with unsourced sections and paragraphs and statements that need to be sourced.
    • Non-English sources need to state what language they're in.
    • The sources that are present need to be improved. There are several instances (for example, current refs #22 and 23) where referenes that are assumedly books don't have titles. Also, other references that I'm not sure what they are, for example #16 and 17.
  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:

This article has some serious issues with sourcing and prose, which need to be rectified before this article can be of GA status. I am going to put this article on hold for a week to allow time for the above concerns to be taken care of. If you have any questions, please let me know. Dana boomer (talk) 19:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

How is work progressing on the article? I see that quite a bit of referencing and some copyediting has been done, which is looking good. There are still a few areas that need citations, where opinions are being expressed or where statistics are given. Also, the last two points in the sources section above need to be addressed. Please let me know how this is going! If you would like, I can put fact tags at the areas that still need citing - this is up to you. Dana boomer (talk) 17:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Nothing has been done on this article, and no response has been made to my above comment over the past 4 days, so I am going to have to fail the article. There are still some serious referencing concerns, both in the lack of in-line citations and in references missing basic information. I look forward to seeing this article back at GAN when the referencing has been improved. Dana boomer (talk) 23:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)