Wikipedia:Peer review/History of Solidarity/archive1

History of Solidarity

Quite comprehensive. I wonder what would you recommend before a FAC?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 17:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A through copy-edit for proper usage and grammar would be helpful. Beware of snake sentences, especially. Could the second picture of the iconic banner be moved to a better position within the article? Right now it and the TOC are causing a large break in the text between the introduction and the first section. And more inline citations would be helpful -- perhaps some of the external links could be cited and then become references? -Fsotrain09 01:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One comment about the cover of Time: the use of a magazine cover in an article that doesn't talk about that issue, but just uses it as an illustration, doesn't fall under the fair use that Wikipedia fair use policy allows. You might want to expand the fair use claim in the image. This isn't enforced for FA, but I did notice this for my own current FAC and fixed it for a couple of images. Take a look at this image, at the "Rationale for fair use" section, and you'll see what I mean.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Christie (talk • contribs)

I thought that it would be enough to mention the cover and its importance in the caption itself...?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 09:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a fair use expert, so what I did was ask about this at the fair use project talk page. Here's that discussion; it looks to me from this as if the image page is where the fair use claim should live. I'm not completely clear that your use is fair use, in this case; it does look as if you are illustrating with it. Or are you using it as supporting evidence of Walesa's prominence at that time? That would be good enough, I think. Mike Christie 11:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a lot more inline references to be ready for FAC. --Peter Andersen 20:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So few inline references might prove insufficient for a FA-level article. Additionally, there are some inline external links that should be converted into refs. There are at least 9 more o
Some FAC reviewers are fond of detailed fair-use rationales for each non-PD pic.
I would like to see a "criticisms" section somewhere. No one is perfect, and especially politicians... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 10:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for criticism, I agree, but I think this would rather belong in the main article (which is certainly not GA-near, and this is why I split the good history section fromt he otherwise uncomplete article). This is just 'history of...', and I don't think it needs 'criticism of...' section.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 19:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 23:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]