Talk:Stanisław Poniatowski (1676–1762)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: DCI2026 (talk · contribs) 20:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I will review on a section-by-section basis for content quality as per GA standards. A preliminary checklist will be placed at the bottom when I'm done (hopefully, by Fri., Oct. 18. dci | TALK 20:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Lead

• A copyedit is needed here. The sentences are rather choppy, and a check for correct capitalization is needed (e.g. Familia). dci | TALK 20:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• A longer lead with more personal information, less on each office he held, and a little more on his overall impact on Polish-Lithuanian history would be helpful for this article. dci | TALK 20:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• • I've done some c/e to lead. I don't think anything in the position should be cut, and I also don't see what is missing - but you are welcome to make more specific suggestions, or edit the lead yourself. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Copyedit notice

I will be copyediting the other sections today and will complete the review between tonight and tomorrow. dci | TALK 20:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• The process is taking a bit long; I have extended the c/e to the remaining sections. dci | TALK 02:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Pass

I'm inclined to pass the article; I'll have a checklist up by tomorrow. dci | TALK 00:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

• My apologies, this evening. dci | TALK 22:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Take your time, I am in no hurry :) Thrice the charm? :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
    • I suppose so. dci | TALK 19:21, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
      • I'll give it another couple days, and if it's not completed I'll do the review. It's not that long an article, no reason for such a delay. Wizardman 23:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Checklist

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

---

This article has passed its GA review.

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

   The article is well-written, though it would be wise to keep an eye out for grammar and usage in some cases.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   No problems whatsoever in this regard.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The article is reasonably broad, while remaining appropriate in its biographical coverage.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   No problems whatsoever here.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Again, not even an issue.

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):

   All appears well in regard to pictures and related copyrights.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   A well-written article. I would double-check in some areas for grammar and usage consistency. My sincere apologies for the inappropriate delay. dci | TALK 02:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)