Talk:Concordat of 1925/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: North8000 (talk · contribs) 02:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am starting a review of this article. North8000 (talk) 02:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review discussion

Has no images. Would it be feasible to add an image or 2? If not that is fine, because the criteria says "if possible" Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:13, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added an image of one of the main Polish negotiators. Would be nice to get an image of the document, but it's not that easy... I am not even sure if the physical copies still exit, and if so, where. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:38, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! North8000 (talk) 03:25, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know that it's linked, but IMHO there should be at least a few word description of what a Concordat is. Without that, unless they went to the other article, an average person could read this article and not know what it is about. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I put a one-word ("agreement") description in. North8000 (talk) 13:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify what "who consider concordat to have only been ended by the Polish side by this declaration" means. Is it discussing who ended it? Or t that it is still in force or in force in one direction? North8000 (talk) 13:56, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Under "negotiations", it is not clear which year it was ratified. Could you add the year to one or two of those dates? North8000 (talk) 13:56, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to have a discussion regarding sources/sourcing. Nearly all of them are off-line and or in non-english languages....this is NOT per se a problem, but in combination with it appearing that the Concordat itself (a primary source and a very bare reference...is that what that means? ) being the most heavily used source, I would like to discuss the sources to put any questions in this areas to rest. I have other questions / things i'd like to discuss, but since there have been no responses to my 11 and 15 day old questions, I wanted to start by seeing that three is an editor actively involved. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:51, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@User:North8000 I am really sorry to say that you should probably fail it. I don't have access to the sources, nor am I the primary author of this, who became inactive. I was hoping he would be available to help with those issues; I can help with my general knowledge of Polish history and wiki skills, but I am unable to help out with the issues you have raised. Thanks for the review; hopefully it will be a helpful "to do" list when another editor interested in this topic will arrive here. Cheers, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:47, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that and your efforts. User:Piotrus. I think that what you suggested is the correct thing to do. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:59, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA criteria final checklist

Well-written

Factually accurate and verifiable

Broad in its coverage

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 13:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrated, if possible, by images

Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 13:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result

Non-pass, as suggested by the nominator. This needs some work by and dialog with a main editor, and none is present/available. North8000 (talk) 15:01, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]