Talk:Robinson Crusoes of Warsaw/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sp33dyphil (talk · contribs) 06:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

So... where is the review? I understand taking a few minutes, or hours, but days...? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 19:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

• Can the lead be lengthened?
• Access dates missing from five links.
• Add alt text to images (strongly recommended).
• "who, after the end" "by Nazi Germany, decided to stay" note the commas
• Why isn't "Armia Krajowa" italicised?
• What does "SS", as in "SS Brigadeführer", mean?
• No need to add Ltd to publishers.
• Location of publishers?
• Where are the sources for the notes?
• There shouldn't be an image aligned to the left right under "Number and demographics".
• Stuffed-up reference formatting before "by Szymon Rogoźinski".

---

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

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:

I think I addressed most of these, except for the expansion of the lede. For access dates, it is my understanding that these are not necessary, particularly in the case where a source is offline or a book on google books. Generally I only put those in when I use websites or stuff on websites on sources (sometimes with automated edits, these fields get put into the template even though they're not relevant/necessary). I added alt text to most of the images and will add it to the other one or two in a sec. I have to think about how to expand the lede since it already summarizes the article pretty well. Volunteer Marek  03:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Expanded the lede a bit. Let me know if it's sufficient. Generally I think the purpose of the lede is to summarize and draw the reader in, not repeat all the details of the main text, so I tend to go with a short "Abstract". Volunteer Marek  17:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

In case there are any issues that need urgent fixing, I'll watchlist the nomination and try to help with it as well. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:06, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• No need to add Ltd to publishers. - the singular instance of this removed. ???
• Location of publishers? - These are not required even for FAs. There was one instance where location was listed.
• Where are the sources for the notes? - In the sentence which the notes refer to. I didn't double-cite the individual notes and the text itself, but I can if this is desired.
• There shouldn't be an image aligned to the left right under "Number and demographics". - Fixed (though I generally disagree with this style suggestion, here and elsewhere)
• Stuffed-up reference formatting before "by Szymon Rogoźinski". - good catch. Fixed.

 Volunteer Marek  02:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

A week is about to pass. So, pass? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 02:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)