Talk:Prehistory and protohistory of Poland/GA2

GA Review

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

Notes on article

1. Title: Prehistory of Poland (until 966 of what? chickens?)

1. The lead seems choppy, see prose review below.

1. Stone Age section seems way to short, especially considering the whole other article about (Note: Stone Age Poland is also on GA Review)

Review by ErikTheBikeMan

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Main problems:

   "Although it spans at least half a million years, there is only a very limited amount of information accessible." This section confuses me.

   "on the not very numerous written ancient and medieval sources, once they become available" Perhaps "the few written...sources"?

   " involved three different human species" First, I believe you mean "subspecies." Second, which three?

   "Other groups were no doubt also present" Which other groups?

   "Short of using written language, many of them developed advanced material culture and social organization. " Why wasn't there written language? Also, elaborate on the "advanced material culture" and explain how that was possible without writing.

   "According to the currently predominant opinion..." Which would be proposed by whom?

   "They went through a period of accelerated building of fortified settlements and territorial expansion beginning in the first half of the10th century, and the Polish state developed from their tribal entity in the second half of that century." Which century? What kind of building? Examples. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 23:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

   B. MoS compliance:

   Lead needs expansion. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 23:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Some English language references would be nice for verifiability. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 23:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Lead is entirely uncited. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 23:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Per notes above, along with problems raised in the prose review section. Also, a nice explanation of why writing doesn't make it to Poland until exactly 966 AD would be nice. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 23:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

   B. Focused:

   This article does seem to never drift off topic. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 23:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Quite stable. No edits in two days prior to my review (and two minor edits on grammer, etc.)ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 23:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Are there images?

   B. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   C. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   The first image doesn't seem to fit the "Prehistory" bit. Also, the map is a bit difficult to read. Perhaps the author could make one themselves? ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 23:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

1. On hold for seven days for editors to address issues. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 23:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)