Talk:Poland in antiquity/GA2

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


 * Starting GA review.Pyrotec (talk) 21:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Initial review
Having spend some time reading this article in depth, the article is quite readable and appears to be verifiable - I say "appears" because all the citations are in Polish and I can't read Polish. So I will take it on trust that the article is verifiable and that it does not breach any copyrights.

Specific comments:
 * The WP:Lead is intended to explain and summarise the article and it appears to achieve those aims. However, a brief comment on "runic inscriptions" appears in the Lead - it is not mentioned elsewhere.
 * (Woops) The Lead has a start date (about 400 BC), an end date (presumably in the Early Middle Ages) should be added.
 * I think this article needs a map of modern-day Europe showing the location of Poland in Europe. The other two maps show various specific features, but do not indicate the location of Poland.
 * The first distribution map has a colour code of some kind (or intensity / density scale). The colours need to be explained (as per the second distribution map).
 * The title of the first distribution map needs some explanation of the time period - does it refer to modern-day distribution of the language - see for instance the first distribution map in Celts?
 * Both distribution maps need to comply with WP:verify, so a citation needs to be given for each one so that the information claim can be verified. Note: the source file for the second distribution map does provide a written source, so that is an easy one to fix.

If (when) these points are resolved, I will be willing to award the article GA-status.Pyrotec (talk) 20:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Review
You seem to have satisfactorily cleared up these point, so I removing the hold. GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Congratulations, on your article it is now GA-class.Pyrotec (talk) 18:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)