Talk:Bolko I the Strict/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 02:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * The lead of this article is slightly too short. It should be a solid one-paragraph summary of the article, with no new information added. The information on his name and its translations does not need to be repeated in the body, but the information on his parents should be discussed later in the article.
 * There are many short paragraphs in the Life section which make it choppy and harder to read. Please either expand these or combine them with other paragraphs.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * The entire article is almost completely unreferenced. There are many paragraphs in the Life section that have statements that need references. For example, "instead of expected successes" (third paragraph), "to his great surprise" (ninth paragraph), etc. These are just examples, there are other instances.
 * Are the last four items in the References section actually used as references? If not, they should be moved to an External links section. If so, they need more information. Publishers and access dates should be provided at the very least, and authors and publication dates when possible. Also:
 * What makes Complete Genealogy of the House of Piast (third item) a reliable ref? It appears to be self-published.
 * BOLKO I SUROWY (WIELKI, CHWALEBNY, ŚWIDNICKI) (fourth item) needs to note that it is not in English. Also, is it self-published? If so, it's probably not a reliable reference. Also, it should not be in all capital letters.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:

This article has some major issues with referencing, and so I am placing it on hold for now. This is not a complete review - I will be waiting for someone to address the above points before I complete a full prose/NPOV/coverage review of the article. I will be watchlisting this page, so if you have any questions, please let me know here. Dana boomer (talk) 03:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This article has been on hold for a week now, with no edits, despite notifications to the nominator's talk page. The editor has indicated a willingness to work on the article, however, and so I will leave it on hold for an extra two days. If, at that time, no work has taken place, I will have to fail the article's GA nomination. Dana boomer (talk) 02:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As this article has been on hold for over a week and a half with no improvements, I am going to have to fail the review. When the above concerns have been rectified, this article can be brought back to GAN. Dana boomer (talk) 20:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)