Talk:Poland in antiquity/GA2

GA Review

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

Starting GA review.Pyrotec (talk) 21:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Initial review

Having spend some time reading this article in depth, the article is quite readable and appears to be verifiable - I say "appears" because all the citations are in Polish and I can't read Polish. So I will take it on trust that the article is verifiable and that it does not breach any copyrights.

Specific comments:

• The WP:Lead is intended to explain and summarise the article and it appears to achieve those aims. However, a brief comment on "runic inscriptions" appears in the Lead - it is not mentioned elsewhere.
• (Woops) The Lead has a start date (about 400 BC), an end date (presumably in the Early Middle Ages) should be added.
• I think this article needs a map of modern-day Europe showing the location of Poland in Europe. The other two maps show various specific features, but do not indicate the location of Poland.
• The first distribution map has a colour code of some kind (or intensity / density scale). The colours need to be explained (as per the second distribution map).
• The title of the first distribution map needs some explanation of the time period - does it refer to modern-day distribution of the language - see for instance the first distribution map in Celts?
• Both distribution maps need to comply with WP:verify, so a citation needs to be given for each one so that the information claim can be verified. Note: the source file for the second distribution map does provide a written source, so that is an easy one to fix.

If (when) these points are resolved, I will be willing to award the article GA-status.Pyrotec (talk) 20:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Review

You seem to have satisfactorily cleared up these point, so I removing the hold. GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

A Good Article

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Some English Language ones would be good - a job to consider for the future.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Some English Language ones would be good - a job to consider for the future.

   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 copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

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

   Some good maps / schematics

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Congratulations, on your article it is now GA-class.Pyrotec (talk) 18:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)