Jump to content

Talk:Kraków/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

Starting review. SilkTork *YES! 15:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
    2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (b) 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);[2] and
    (c) it contains no original research.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. [4]
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. [5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]
  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article. Science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows short articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (including other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

Rather a lot of images. The initial impression is not good. The layout is too messy, cluttered and confused. Will fail 1(a) for layout.

Images are forced.

Structure follows guidelines apart from placing Etymology section at the start.

The History section is rather long.

This is a big subject, so reviewing this may take a little bit of time. I also note that there have been editing issues in the past, and there are signs of edit conflicts still in place.

I notice a variety of challengable statements uncited.

Kraków deserves to have a decent article, but I'm unsure from first impressions that what we have is quite there yet. I'll be taking a closer look later, but I suspect there is a fair amount of work to be done for a GA tag. SilkTork *YES! 19:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm making some simple edits to declutter the article. It was very busy with overlarge images of different sizes which was rather distracting. I notice that this issue has been brought up in at least one previous review. I've also moved Etymology as the City guidelines have an accepted layout of sections which works well. SilkTork *YES! 16:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The Lead needs to be looked at to ensure it reflects the contents. And the History section needs trimming. If this is not addressed shortly, then I'll tackle it. SilkTork *YES! 16:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I've been working on addressing some of the issues as I see them, though the more I work on this article the more that I see there is a fair amount of work to do (I noticed today some cite tags that needed sorting). I am getting to the point where I feel I am about to cross over from being a reviewer to being a contributor, and it would be inappropriate for me to continue. As such I feel the best course of action is for me to close this GAN; then continue working on it to bring it up to standard. DIfficult to say how long it will take to bring it up to standard - but given the background reading involved and my own sporadic WikiTime, probably a month.


Article not passed as a GA:

Fails 1a - Lead section needs to comply with MoS - expand to reflect more closely the content. Fails 2 - Some statements need supporting, and refs need checking - there are dead links. Fails 3 - Possibly. This needs closer examination. Difficult at the moment to work out the priority of information importance. History section still needs trimming. Culture sections needs sorting out. I have brought in a bunch of material which needs sorting. SilkTork *YES! 15:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kraków/GA1&oldid=1091477142"