Talk:Justynian Szczytt (d. 1677)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Quadell (talk · contribs) 17:57, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Nominator: Kmicic

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	There are many very short paragraphs, some with just a single sentence. The paragraphs should be varied to improve the prose. The fact that he was a Polish noble should be mentioned in the first sentence of the lead section. This would provide context. "Marriage and children" is a separate section from "Family". But one's wife and children are part of one's family. These sections should be merged, or one should be a subsection of another.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	A disambiguation hatnote is needed at the top of the page. This article relies heavily on lists. Many of these should be converted into prose, especially the list of villages he held a lien on. Overlinking: This article links Polotsk and Chamberlain (office) twice in the lead. It includes redlinks to the names of many villages which are not notable enough to have articles on them. It also links to Kasper Niesiecki twice, and redlinks to Teodor Zychlinski four times. The lead section should summarize all sections of the article, but only information from the "life" section is summarized in the lead. The link to Kazimierz Jan Sapieha goes to a disambiguation page, and it's not clear which person you mean.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	The notes sometimes uses an appropriate abbreviated citation to a source listed in the reference section. For instance, the note "Haratym, p. 563." refers to the full Haratym citation in the references. On the other hand, sometimes each note repeats information that is already is the references. The notes that refer to Zychlinski could all be shortened to something like "Zychlinski, p. 361."
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Everything is sourced.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Not a problem.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	I understand that little has been written about this person, but the lack of information in the article is striking. I would compare it to the featured articles Eadbald of Kent, Coenred of Mercia, and Eardwulf of Northumbria, and it would be instructive to see the sorts of material used in these articles.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Not a problem.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Not a problem.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Not a problem.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	The copyright tag for File:Niesiecki321.JPG indicates that it was first published in the U.S. If that is not the case, the tag should be changed.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	It is unclear what the "Herbarz polski" image is showing me. It looks like an image of text in Polish from a source. This is not clearly relevant to the article.
	7. Overall assessment.	This does not meet all the GA criteria at this time. If the issues here are resolved, feel free to renominate the article in the future. – Quadell (talk) 18:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC)