Talk:Hugo Steinhaus/GA1

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

Reviewer: Divide et Impera (talk • message • contribs • count  • [/wiki/Special:Log?user= logs ] • email)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: Some fixed. Divide et Impera (talk) 17:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Linkrot:None found.Divide et Impera (talk) 17:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

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


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * The prose is fluent and simple. It is an easy read.Divide et Impera (talk) 18:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The lead is fine in my opinion. Coincise and to the point, it fairly represents the main points of Steinhaus activity.Divide et Impera (talk) 17:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Layout: It is, in my opinion, unfair to Steinhaus, to provide his life separately from his work, but I have seen this approach in several articles and there is nothing that prevents the editor from this presentation. Probably this is a concern that should be raised in FA status.Divide et Impera (talk) 17:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Word choice:Carefully chosen and well represents Steinhaus activity. I am satisfied.Divide et Impera (talk) 17:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * An embedded list represents his works. I wonder if we could possibly source that list? and it's sourcedDivide et Impera (talk) 17:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * References are good: I checked them and although some are in Polish, I have full faith in the editor, who is extremely experienced. None of the sources stroke me as unreliable. The sources provided are reliable and everything (with the exception of the list of works) is well supported. Solving point 1 above will solve also point 2. Divide et Impera (talk) 17:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * I believe that the article encyclopaedically focuses on the scientist and based on the sources provided, fairly sums up the activity of Steinhaus. I prefer a coincise article to a huge article that is more similar to a scholar work. The information is exhaustive of his life, work and achievements.Divide et Impera (talk) 17:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * No concerns. Divide et Impera (talk) 17:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * The only edit warring has come from an IP nationalist editor, who seems to have been a POV pusher, in 2007. Nothing to be noted recently, especially with the well sourced wording that the main contributor has put into the article. The article recently was in DYK and had almost 2k viewers. Divide et Impera (talk) 17:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 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):
 * Images are very well researched and have suitable captions. Divide et Impera (talk) 17:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

In regard to the Chief works list - can it be cited to the original publications (primary sources), or should I find a secondary source which mentions a particular publication as one of his "chief works" (or something similar)?Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * A secondary source that mentions the list of his works would be best, however, if such source is difficult to find, it would be fine with me if you could source the original publications (or later ones, if the originals are difficult to find) to googlebooks. Divide et Impera (talk) 14:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Mmm, ok, what I'm going to do for this then is to provide double citations, one for a secondary source which mentions a particular work as "major" in some sense, and a second one to the primary source itself.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Good job. I promoted the article. Best of luck at FA.Divide et Impera (talk) 15:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)