Talk:Stanisław Poniatowski (1676–1762)/GA1

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

Reviewer: DCI2026 (talk · contribs) 20:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I will review on a section-by-section basis for content quality as per GA standards. A preliminary checklist will be placed at the bottom when I'm done (hopefully, by Fri., Oct. 18. dci  &#124;  TALK   20:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Lead

 * A copyedit is needed here. The sentences are rather choppy, and a check for correct capitalization is needed (e.g. Familia).   dci  &#124;  TALK   20:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * A longer lead with more personal information, less on each office he held, and a little more on his overall impact on Polish-Lithuanian history would be helpful for this article.  dci  &#124;  TALK   20:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I've done some c/e to lead. I don't think anything in the position should be cut, and I also don't see what is missing - but you are welcome to make more specific suggestions, or edit the lead yourself. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 16:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Copyedit notice
I will be copyediting the other sections today and will complete the review between tonight and tomorrow. dci &#124;  TALK   20:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The process is taking a bit long; I have extended the c/e to the remaining sections.  dci  &#124;  TALK   02:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Pass
I'm inclined to pass the article; I'll have a checklist up by tomorrow. dci &#124;  TALK   00:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * My apologies, this evening.  dci  &#124;  TALK   22:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Take your time, I am in no hurry :) Thrice the charm? :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 19:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I suppose so.  dci  &#124;  TALK   19:21, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll give it another couple days, and if it's not completed I'll do the review. It's not that long an article, no reason for such a delay. Wizardman  23:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Checklist

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

This article has passed its GA review.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * The article is well-written, though it would be wise to keep an eye out for grammar and usage in some cases.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * No problems whatsoever in this regard.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * The article is reasonably broad, while remaining appropriate in its biographical coverage.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * No problems whatsoever here.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Again, not even an issue.
 * 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):
 * All appears well in regard to pictures and related copyrights.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * A well-written article. I would double-check in some areas for grammar and usage consistency. My sincere apologies for the inappropriate delay.   dci  &#124;  TALK   02:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)