Talk:Sejny Uprising/GA1

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

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 13:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * will review this article. MathewTownsend (talk) 13:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * review
 * Link checker shows three dead links, two are completely dead and one just goes to a general front page with rotating content.
 * Fixed one, archive.org is down right now so I'll try to deal with the remaining two later.


 * lede
 * "uprising in the ethnically-mixed area surrounding Sejny" - how about this: "in the ethnically-mixed area surrouding the Polish town of Sejny"? - or was it a Polish town then? Lithuranian, I guess, reading further.
 * I did some tweaking.
 * (its unbelievably hard for readers like me to understand Eastern European history because we were never taught it.)
 * It's pretty hard for us here, too :)
 * Entent - I'd never heard of this word before your articles - maybe rather than piping it, use the link Allies of World War I?
 * Hmmm, I think it is useful. The WWI has ended, the term Entente seems slightly better, as it implies the alliance. I'd prefer to keep it.


 * Is there a map similar to this one to show the situation? Lithuania territory 1939-1940.svg
 * Hmmm. What do you think of File:Rzeczpospolita Lithuania claims.png? Or perhaps File:PBW December 1919.png?

(will continue) MathewTownsend (talk) 18:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not clear that the Allied Powers were involved in some of these conferences/negotiations.
 * Not clear how?


 * "volunteers numbered some 900[1] or 1,200 men" - the "or" seems strange here - not clear what's happening.
 * Added (sources vary).


 * "The most notable incident occurred on October 12 when Polish troops planned to attack Kapčiamiestis." - they only planned or did they attack?
 * I am sorry, it's a Lithuanian book ([ttp://www.lka.lt/EasyAdmin/sys/files/LIETUVOS_KARIUOMENE_1.pdf]), I cannot read it. I can only remove it if it is not clear :( --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 15:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I've made some minor edits but you are free to change.


 * Will place on hold. MathewTownsend (talk) 13:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * replies
 * Re "the most notable incident occurred ... Polish troops planned to attack" - the thing is, was the fact that they planned to attack that notable? (maybe, but what would be the significance of just planning?) On the other hand, if the did attack what was the outcome? With more information, I don't see how it's notable.
 * Re map - I'm not all that sure where Lithuania is without a map that names Lithuania, and preferably Poland also.
 * But these are both rather small issues. No sweat. I can find out where Lithuania is other ways! MathewTownsend (talk) 16:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've removed the confusing sentence. Is there anything else I can do? Unfortunately, I do not have the skills needed to create a new map.
 * What about the dead links? (although I've heard that dead links are not a reason to hold up promotion) MathewTownsend (talk) 21:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Sooo ... since this is an interesting, well written article, it passes!

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

Congratulations! MathewTownsend (talk) 21:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * a. prose: clear and concise, respects copyright laws, correct spelling and grammar:
 * b. complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * a. provides references to all sources in the section(s) dedicated to footnotes/citations according to the guide to layout:
 * b. provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:
 * There are some dead links, but on the Good article talk pages, it seems that dead links are not a reason to withhold promotion from an otherwise good article.
 * c. no original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * b. it remains focused and does not go into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
 * 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:
 * Pass!
 * 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:
 * Pass!
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass!