Talk:Przemysł II/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: North8000 (talk · contribs) 13:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

Hello, I am starting a review on this article. I chose it because it is the oldest nomination that has not had a review started. It is of a type (large complex article on a topic that is not well known in the English Wikipedia) that can be slow to get reviewed, and I tend to take those. North8000 (talk) 13:35, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to get my request in early, is there a person or persons here that would probably handle or respond to any issues that I bring up? North8000 (talk) 13:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA criteria final checklist

Well-written

Small English grammar issues that I plan to fix

There are numerous small English grammar issues. I think that it would be faster for me to fix them than note them and I'd be happy to do so. North8000 (talk) 21:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done through the end of the "Kidnapping of Henryk IV Probus by Bolesław II Rogatka. Battle of Stolec" section. North8000 (talk) 22:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done through the end of the "Treaty of Kepno..." section. North8000 (talk) 23:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done through the end of "Congresses of Łęczyca...." section. North8000 (talk) 01:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done through the end of the article. It still has the issues listed below (which I couldn't fix because I didn't know what they were trying to say). Still has some subtler grammar issues, but, after the below ones are fixed, the remaining ones are not enough to stop GA status. North8000 (talk) 04:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

English grammar / mis-wording issues that North8000 can't fix and so need fixing by others

In the lead, can you clarify "down from Lesser Poland". Is this stepping down from a particular role for Lesser Poland? North8000 (talk) 21:45, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved North8000 (talk) 12:32, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

in the "Cooperation with King...." section, the phrase "They are also known political decisions that were made there" has a grammar problem but I don't know what it is trying to say. Can you fix? North8000 (talk) 23:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved North8000 (talk) 12:34, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the second paragraph in the "Treaty of Kepno...." section, "unlikely to Mestwin II, who was accompanied by only one voivode" has a grammar problem but I can't fix it because I don't know what it is trying to say. Could you clarify or fix? North8000 (talk) 23:45, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved. North8000 (talk) 12:36, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the "Marriage with Rikissa..." section, "who a year received from Przemysł II the village of Giecz in gratitude for his services" has a grammar problem but I can't fix it because I don't know what it is trying to say. Could you clarify or fix? North8000 (talk) 01:11, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved North8000 (talk) 12:37, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the "royal government and death" section, "where confirmed the privileges of the Cistercian monasteries in Oliwa and Żarnowiec" has a grammar problem but I can't fix it because I don't know what it is trying to say. Could you clarify or fix? North8000 (talk) 02:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved North8000 (talk) 00:04, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the "royal government and death" section, "though the Kronika wielkopolska failed to bring his work to the time of his contemporaries, and so the years 1295–1296[213] and told the events of Rogoźno" has grammar issues / is unclear. I can't fix it because I don't know what it is trying to say. Could you clarify or fix? North8000 (talk) 02:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved North8000 (talk) 12:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the "Seals and coinage" section, the following: "due to the activities of mints certified by sources and the occurrence of witnesses made by the ruler of legal actions – minters,[275] can be almost certain that any coins existed" has grammar issues / is unclear. I can't fix it because I don't know what it is trying to say. Can you clarify / fix it? North8000 (talk) 03:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved North8000 (talk) 12:41, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the "Seals and coinage" section, the sentence "In turn, appears on the reverse side facing the right side of the crowned eagle." has grammar issues / is unclear. I can't fix it because I don't know what it is trying to say. Could you clarify or fix?North8000 (talk) 03:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved. North8000 (talk) 12:42, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Near the end of the "Economic policy" section, there were many phrases that I worked on (please check that I didn't change any facts) but there was one remaining: "In 1294 a privilege was granted ranging cottagers on German law in the Old Town in Kalisz" which has grammar issues / is unclear. I can't fix it because I don't know what it is trying to say. Can you fix/ clarify? North8000 (talk) 03:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved North8000 (talk) 12:45, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Other issues

As written, the second half of the first paragraph in the "War with Brandenburg. Expedition to Neumark" section seems to conflict with itself. Says it failed, then talks about him doing victor type actions. Can you clarify? North8000 (talk) 21:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved North8000 (talk) 23:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Passes this criteria North8000 (talk) 00:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Factually accurate and verifiable

Excellent and immense job on this!

The lineage section is a statement of who his ancestors were (or, in some cases, probably were. Could you provide a cite / source for that? North8000 (talk) 04:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved North8000 (talk) 23:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"KDW" is used a large amount of times in sparse cites, but it's unclear which item in the Bibliography it is referring to, and I don't know what it is. Does it have an author? Is there some way to clarify? North8000 (talk) 14:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To flesh out and summarize the one open issue , "KDW" is used 66 times as a reference, but it is listed only as "KDW" for each cite, with no explanation of what it is, no listing as such in the bibliography, or no linkage to any listing in the bibliography. So I think that this is a significant but easily fixed issue. North8000 (talk) 13:43, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Passes this criteria. North8000 (talk) 11:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Broad in its coverage

Passes this criteria. North8000 (talk) 04:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each

Passes this criteria. North8000 (talk) 01:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

Passes this criteria. North8000 (talk) 01:22, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrated, if possible, by images

Image status #1 - #4 are public domain. #5 has a suitable license. #6-#8 are public domain. #9 (church) &#10 (map) have a suitable licenses. #11, #12 are public domain. #13 (church) has a suitable license. #14 has a suitable license #15, #16 (seals) are public domain.

Passes this criteria. North8000 (talk) 02:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article will need involvement by someone on behalf of the article to pass the current GA review

This article will need involvement by someone on behalf of the article to pass the current GA review. I'm writing this here (outside of the GA review)because many folks probably have the article on their watchlist but not the transcluded GA review, Overall it is an excellent article which shows an immense amount of good research and work. However, it had an immense amount of "writing in the English language" grammar issues. I was happy to fix the ones that I could (over 100 fixes) but I listed 12 where I could not do that. Most of those were because I could not even tell what the sentence or phrase was intended to say. I really can't pass this excellent article with those 12 significant wording problems. I already wrote on the user page of the person who was a major contributor and nominator. And they appear to have no email on their account. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC) GA Reviewer.[reply]

@Oliszydlowski: Another attempt. Pinged here, and placed another post on nominator & key editor's talk page. North8000 (talk) 11:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, you fixed most of the; just a few more to go. North8000 (talk) 23:41, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating my earlier post from above, to flesh out and summarize the one open issue , "KDW" is used 66 times as a reference, but it is listed only as "KDW" for each cite, with no explanation of what it is, no listing as such in the bibliography, or no linkage to any listing in the bibliography. So I think that this is a significant but easily fixed issue. North8000 (talk) 12:47, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ResolvedNorth8000 (talk) 11:07, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Result of Good article review

Congratulations, this article passes as a Wikipedia Good Article. What an immense amount of excellent work was done on this article! And what an immense amount of excellent, sourced information that it contains!

In this case the article's nominator is also a substantial contributor to it. With the large amount of time I spent, including, in addition to the review, fixing a large amount of grammatical issues, with substantial attempts to communicate, multiple followups on open items, extension of the review process to 3 weeks for the issues that I could not fix to get fixed, it was a bit unsettling to not receive any communication back, including on the extended amount of time I was waiting for the fixes on the items which I could not fix. Possibly this may be useful feedback on any future GA reviews.

Nice work! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:19, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]