Talk:Mieszko I/GA1

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

I am failing this article because:
 * 1) Referencing: there are entire paragraphs and sections without a reference!
 * 2) Language: the article is written in broken English and really badly needs a thorough copyedit.
 * 3) Praise: the article is praising Miezko (eg. "Mieszko I was a wise politician, a talented military leader and charismatic ruler" -- especially bad in the lead, entire "Accomplishments" sections) -- when a reader should read all the facts and make conclusion himself/herself whether he was a good ruler. Also, there are some pure speculations, like "Mieszko the victory had to be a satisfying experience".
 * 4) Historiography: there is much discussion regarding various theories (ancient vs modern historians, one modern historian vs another) -- it is unavoidable when there is little sources, but it should be handled better. There should be more attribution (which historian says that) and there should be no taking sides (no "that theory in incorrect") -- present arguments for and against ("one says that, another says different") and leave it there.
 * 5) Linking: there is a bunch of names, places, chronicles, etc. that deserve a link (even if it is a red link at the moment).
 * 6) Accomplishments section: again, avoid praise and lists (merge the bullet points into prose somewhere). It is a very poor attempt at "Legacy" section -- which needs to added.
 * 7) Succession: there are only 2 sentences about that. Needs to be expanded as part of legacy.
 * 8) Overall: I think the content is mostly there (just some hiccups at the end). You just need to polish it some more. Good luck! Renata (talk) 02:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)