Talk:Robinson Crusoes of Warsaw/GA1

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

Reviewer: Sp33dyphil (talk · contribs) 06:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * So... where is the review? I understand taking a few minutes, or hours, but days...? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 19:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


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


 * Can the lead be lengthened?
 * Access dates missing from five links.
 * Add alt text to images (strongly recommended).
 * "who, after the end" "by Nazi Germany, decided to stay" note the commas
 * Why isn't "Armia Krajowa" italicised?
 * What does "SS", as in "SS Brigadeführer", mean?
 * No need to add Ltd to publishers.
 * Location of publishers?
 * Where are the sources for the notes?
 * There shouldn't be an image aligned to the left right under "Number and demographics".
 * Stuffed-up reference formatting before "by Szymon Rogoźinski".


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

I think I addressed most of these, except for the expansion of the lede. For access dates, it is my understanding that these are not necessary, particularly in the case where a source is offline or a book on google books. Generally I only put those in when I use websites or stuff on websites on sources (sometimes with automated edits, these fields get put into the template even though they're not relevant/necessary). I added alt text to most of the images and will add it to the other one or two in a sec. I have to think about how to expand the lede since it already summarizes the article pretty well.  Volunteer Marek  03:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Expanded the lede a bit. Let me know if it's sufficient. Generally I think the purpose of the lede is to summarize and draw the reader in, not repeat all the details of the main text, so I tend to go with a short "Abstract".  Volunteer Marek  17:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In case there are any issues that need urgent fixing, I'll watchlist the nomination and try to help with it as well. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 18:06, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * No need to add Ltd to publishers. - the singular instance of this removed. ???
 * Location of publishers? - These are not required even for FAs. There was one instance where location was listed.
 * Where are the sources for the notes? - In the sentence which the notes refer to. I didn't double-cite the individual notes and the text itself, but I can if this is desired.
 * There shouldn't be an image aligned to the left right under "Number and demographics". - Fixed (though I generally disagree with this style suggestion, here and elsewhere)
 * Stuffed-up reference formatting before "by Szymon Rogoźinski". - good catch. Fixed.

 Volunteer Marek  02:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * A week is about to pass. So, pass? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 02:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)