Talk:Concordat of 1925/GA1

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

Reviewer: North8000 (talk · contribs) 02:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I am starting a review of this article. North8000 (talk) 02:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Review discussion
Has no images. Would it be feasible to add an image or 2? If not that is fine, because the criteria says "if possible" Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:13, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I've added an image of one of the main Polish negotiators. Would be nice to get an image of the document, but it's not that easy... I am not even sure if the physical copies still exit, and if so, where. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:38, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Cool! North8000 (talk) 03:25, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I know that it's linked, but IMHO there should be at least a few word description of what a Concordat is. Without that, unless they went to the other article, an average person could read this article and not know what it is about. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I put a one-word ("agreement") description in. North8000 (talk) 13:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Could you clarify what "who consider concordat to have only been ended by the Polish side by this declaration" means. Is it discussing who ended it? Or t that it is still in force or in force in one direction? North8000 (talk) 13:56, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Under "negotiations", it is not clear which year it was ratified. Could you add the year to one or two of those dates? North8000 (talk) 13:56, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I would like to have a discussion regarding sources/sourcing. Nearly all of them are off-line and or in non-english languages....this is NOT per se a problem, but in combination with it appearing that the  Concordat itself  (a primary source and a very bare reference...is that what that means? ) being the most heavily used source,  I would like to discuss the sources to put any questions in this areas to rest. I have other questions / things i'd like to discuss, but since there have been no responses to my 11 and 15 day old questions, I wanted to start by seeing that three is an editor actively involved. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:51, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * @User:North8000 I am really sorry to say that you should probably fail it. I don't have access to the sources, nor am I the primary author of this, who became inactive. I was hoping he would be available to help with those issues; I can help with my general knowledge of Polish history and wiki skills, but I am unable to help out with the issues you have raised. Thanks for the review; hopefully it will be a helpful "to do" list when another editor interested in this topic will arrive here. Cheers, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:47, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that and your efforts.  User:Piotrus.  I think that what you suggested is the correct thing to do.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:59, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

GA criteria final checklist
Well-written

Factually accurate and verifiable

Broad in its coverage

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute Illustrated, if possible, by images
 * Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 13:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 13:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Result
Non-pass, as suggested by the nominator. This needs some work by and dialog with a main editor, and none is present/available. North8000 (talk) 15:01, 29 November 2013 (UTC)