Talk:Przemysł II

Edit of 12 June 2006
Here's what I did: I would like to see these types of cleanups at other Polish monarchs, most of which are aesthetic messes. Finally, I think this should be moved to a title like Premislas II of Poland or Premislaus II of Poland, but I won't press it. Srnec 20:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * rm superfluous "See also" section: links contained w/i article
 * rm double linking and red links which will never be created
 * rm superfluous section header "Biography"
 * rm image of Piast coat of arms (what's the point?)
 * retooled image format of seals and put them in a gallery beside the sections on marriages and realms
 * format of opening line: changing name in bold to "Premislas" and adding alternative names in English, Latin, Polish
 * more proper format for "Sources"
 * ordered sections in a more logical way to make the information about him and his reign accessible

I agree on naming to English. Marrtel 18:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree. "Premislas" is a strange translation and used only in several Google Books results. Appleseed (Talk) 21:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

B-class review for WP:Poland
@User:Aldebaran69: I am upgrading the assessment of this article from start to C class. This article is pretty close to B-class (and the following WP:GAN nomination). The problems that need to be fixed: --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 13:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * prose could be improved. You can ask User:Nihil novi if he has time, and/or filea request with WikiProject Copyediting (but please note they have a ~1 year backlog)
 * there are unreferenced sentences at the end of paragraphs, or entire unreferenced paragraphs. At this point I have not checked if existing references cover preceding sentences when those sentences are not cited.
 * references and notes should be split
 * section headings should be formatted per WP:HEADINGS
 * please explain abbreviation KDW the first time it appears in refs
 * image ref should be moved to the image page (ref 172)

High Duke
Kudos to those who have worked on this. It's an excellent article. There are many references, though, to him as a "High Duke." I've studied medieval titles for decades and have never come across this one. I suspect it's a translation of a Polish title but it's not one I've heard. Is it supposed to be a Grand Duke? 155.213.224.59 (talk) 15:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "Grand Duke" - common Russo-Polish-Lithuanian moniker. HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:56, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Senior Duke is the correct term I think. The system under which they were named was called Seniority. See also History of Poland during the Piast dynasty and Seniorate ProvinceGerard von Hebel (talk) 20:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Pre-GA review
User:Oliszydlowski, could you tell us why you have not fixed issues I raised at ? You should not ask for a Good Article review when an article is still failing B-class criteria. I doubt the reviewer will tell you anything new. --Hanyangprofessor2 (talk) 07:18, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

- I am now in the progress of fixing the article's references and I looked at the points raised on the talk page. I wasn't able to look at the article and forgot about the nomination. My goal was to first nominate the article and then deal with the issues. Sorry for any confusion and best regards. Oliszydlowski (TALK) 18:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

This article will need involvement by someone on behalf of the article to pass the current GA review
This article will need involvement by someone on behalf of the article to pass the current GA review. I'm writing this here (outside of the GA review)because many folks probably have the article on their watchlist but not the transcluded GA review, Overall it is an excellent article which shows an immense amount of good research and work. However, it had an immense amount of "writing in the English language" grammar issues. I was happy to fix the ones that I could (over 100 fixes) but I listed 12 where I could not do that. Most of those were because I could not even tell what the sentence or phrase was intended to say. I really can't pass this excellent article with those 12 significant. I already wrote on the user page of the person who was a major contributor and nominator. And they appear to have no email on their account. Sincerely,  North8000  (talk) 14:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC) GA Reviewer.

Result of Good article review
(This is "duplicated" here for when the review is no longer transcluded)

Congratulations, this article passes as a Wikipedia Good Article. What an immense amount of excellent work was done on this article! And what an immense amount of excellent, sourced information that it contains!

In this case the article's nominator is also a substantial contributor to it. With the large amount of time I spent, including, in addition to the review, fixing a large amount of grammatical issues, with substantial attempts to communicate, multiple followups on open items, extension of the review process to 3 weeks for the issues that I could not fix to get fixed, it was a bit unsettling to not receive any communication back, including on the extended amount of time I was waiting for the fixes on the items which I could not fix. Possibly this may be useful feedback on any future GA reviews.

Nice work! Sincerely,  North8000  (talk) 11:27, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Numerous problems
Obviously a lot of work has been put into this article but there are many problems too. In fact, I do not understand how the article passed GA nomination. I have fixed some of the issues but a lot more work is needed. I removed some original research, shortened the epic section titles, and removed some unnecessary fanciful illustrations but the grammar, orthography, and style are still seriously flawed. I suggest seeking help from WP:COPYEDITORS. Surtsicna (talk) 00:30, 26 April 2020 (UTC)