Talk:Prehistory and protohistory of Poland/GA3

GA Review

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

I'll be evaluating this article shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

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:

Detailed comments:

• The prose could use some work, it's a bit stitlted. Also a lot of use of passive voice, which doesn't help the prose flow either. An example "There is only a very limited amount of information accessible, because scientific investigations rely on the methods of archeology throughout the period, and on the few written ancient and medieval sources, once they become available." I get the gist of what is being said, but it's awkward. Perhaps "Information on the period is limited, due to the scanty written sources which must be supplemented by archaelogy."
• The lead doesn't summarize the article, it sets forth information that isn't contained in the rest of the article. Nothing is said that connects the "Subject to climactic dicontinuities... " sentence to anything referenced in the rest of the article. Same with the sentence about the arrival of written language, it's not in the Early Middle Ages section.
• Sources. I agree with DGG's comment earlier on the talk page that given the amount of English sources available about Polish and European history, more English language sources should be used.
• Overlinking. We hardly need to link "written language", or have Stone Age linked twice in two successive sentences. These are just examples, there are numerous other
• More prose problems - from the lead "As the Antiquity and Middle Ages civilizations were unfolding in southern and western Europe, the discussed area became influenced to varying degrees, either through intermediate cultures or directly, by those higly developed centers." Again, I get the gist, but it's horribly convoluted and needs to be rewritten. Also, "the discussed area" is self-referential and that type of writing should be avoided when possible (and it almost always is.)
• Stone Age. You mention the three different human species, but which species had which culture/stages? What separates the various stages? What did the people of those stages live on? What type of houses? I realise this is a summary of the main article, but it can be bigger than one short paragraph.
• Bronze and Iron Age section - again, it's self-referential, with "The Iron Age archeological cultures described in the main article no longer existed by the start of the Common Era." You never describe either the Bronze or the Iron age cultures, you need to expand on WHY the subject of the ethnic and linquistic affliation of the groups is contentious, and more awkward prose "The most famous archeological finding from that period is the Biskupin fortified settlement..."
• Antiquity section. More awkward prose, including "Short of using a written language to any appreciable degree, many of them developed relatively advanced material culture and social ogranization, as evidenced by the archeological record, for example judged by the presence of richly furnished, dynastic "princely" graves." It's a run on sentence, and I'm not sure what that first clause is getting at. You need to expand this also, you need to expand a bit on what separates each culture, as well as correcting the prose.
• Early Middle Ages section - Prose is again awkward, needs work. You don't have a source for the statement "Many scholars now believe that the Slavic tribes..." The second paragraph of this section is awkwardly connected to the first. When you say "Frm there the new population..." you're tying it to the statement starting "The Slavs had migrated into Poland..." but there are two long sentences dealing with something else in between the two connected thoughts, so you need to tie it together better or rearrange your sentences.
• Lots of weasel words throughout "Momentous" "most famous"
• What is the source being referred to in note a? Is it on a website? If so, we need to see the site.
• Need a source for note b
• In your references, journal article titles are in quotation marks, only the journal title needs to be in italics.
• The map, surely you can find something giving more recent scholarship than from 1917? Rather than a possibly out of date map, maybe a picture from one or more of the archealogical sites?

Overall, this is a good beginning, but the prose fails it. Also, while this is not the cause of the fail, English language sources are available, and it would be better to use them also. I know that Norman Davies work is in English and widely available. There are also general European history works that can be used to supplement the Polish language sources. Due to the overwhelming prose concerns and the need for better coverage of many of the subjects, I've failed this article. My feeling is that it would take more than a week to fix these. I highly urge the finding of an copyeditor for help with the article. Failing that, a Peer Review may be helpful. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like to comment on one of the criticized points: reliance on Polish sources. It should be obvious that it is Polish science that is most interested and has done most research into those issues, thus it is the Polish sources that will be most comprehensive. English language publications will mostly summarize (translate...) Polish findings, less often adding something new. Davies work, as good as it is, is more of a summary for the English reader then a groundbreaking new research piece. Overall, I support using English sources, even better if they are online (thanks to Google Print), since it makes it easier for the English reader to verify some facts and read up more about certain aspects. That said, first, some facts may have never been translated, and second, adding English sources, while nice, should not be required. English Wikipedia is in English, but per WP:RSUE, not English sources are allowed. Can an article be disqualified from being a Good Article because the writer(s) relied on the non-English sources? I think that smacks too much of WP:BIAS.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

PS. Isn't it customary to give editors time to address issues? Maybe I am missing something, but it appears that this article was reviewed and failed within the same day... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I felt that the prose issues were such that it would take longer than a week to fix. It was the prose that failed the article, and comprehensiveness issues, as there are quite a lot unanswered questions. The sourcing issues, if the others problems had not been present, would not have been enough to hold this back from GA status. (You'll note that in my "capsule review" sourcing concerns were not a fail. Prose and coverage were.) If the editors of the article disagree with my assesment, they are welcome to take it to WP:GAR. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a comment on one point: I agree with Pietrus, and would in fact say that an article on the history of an area that did not give the major contemporary and classic historical sources published in the language of the country ought not to be considered a good article by our standards. I think Pietrus agrees with me, that the best English sources, whatever they are, need to be given as well. (& for that matter truly classic sources in other major languages, if there should be any of particular importance.) DGG (talk) 03:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Ideally, we should have both. I am just not sure whether requirement to have both of them should be a requirement for a GA? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)