Talk:Military of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 19:15, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 19:15, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Initial comments

Overall, this article looks to be at or about GA-level so I'm going to work my way through the article starting with the Background section first and finishing with the Lead. My first impression is that the lead is rather "thin", but I will come to a firm decision on this later in the review. Pyrotec (talk) 19:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

• Background -

• Looks OK.

• Heavy Polish-Lithuanian Hussars of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth -

• This entire section, three paragraphs, is unreferenced.

• It was added by a new editor, and I missed it. I'll leave him a talk page request to add references; if he does not, let's remove it per WP:V. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:06, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

•  Not done Pyrotec (talk) 19:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Section removed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Y Pyrotec (talk) 22:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Composition -
  • Organization -

• Looks OK.

• • Formations and their evolution -

• The fifth paragraph has: "......General of the Artillery (Poland)|General of the Artillery post into the Commonwealth army.[20]". Could this be an "either/or" job title or perhaps a pipe-lined wikilink, General of the Artillery (Poland), that has lost its the first pair of its first and last pair of square brackets/braces?

• Its now in the third paragraph, but  Not done Pyrotec (talk) 19:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• What is not done? Ilink has been fixed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry, I was working in a different web tab. Its this one (but the bolding is mine, it not in the article): "Starting in 1613, the ..... This time also marked the introduction of the General of the Artillery (Poland)|General of the Artillery]] post into the Commonwealth army.[20] ...."

• Ah, I see it now. Fixed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

This subsection has several short paragraphs (four of them) all of only two sentences each.

Thanks. Y Pyrotec (talk) 19:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Fixed all. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:36, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

....stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 21:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, but I'm back reviewing now. Pyrotec (talk) 19:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• • Command structure -

• Looks OK.

• Navy & Logistics and tactics -

• These two sections look OK.

• Problems and reforms -

• I fixed a few minor "problems" in grammar and merged a short paragraph into the one before. If I've changed the meaning, feel free to redo my changes.
• Now, it looks OK.

• WP:Lead -

• The lead does appear to induce the topic of the article and summarise the main points, which is its proper function, but its rather "thin". The lead would be better if it had a bit "more meat", so about twice as long as it currently is.

• Not sure what to add to lead, perhaps you'd have some suggestions? Please note I added a section on the operational history, as I thought the article was missing on the comprehensiveness without mentioning some of the most famous wars and battles of that era. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• I saw that you had added material to the lead and fixed the broken link, so I awarded the article GA status. Since there is a new section on Operational history, you should ensure that the new material is also added to the Lead in summary form. Pyrotec (talk) 20:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I'm pleased to be able to award this article GA. It's been sitting around a long time in the WP:GAN queue. Congratulations on producing an informative article, which is now a GA, on a topic previously unknown to me. Pyrotec (talk) 20:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)