Talk:Rejtan (painting)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Rejtan (painting)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: LT910001 (talk · contribs) 02:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I'll take this review. I'll note at the outset I've had no role in editing or creating this article. I welcome other editors at any stage to contribute to this review. I will spend a day familiarising myself with the article and then provide an assessment. While you wait, why not spare a thought for the other nominees, and conduct a review or two yourself? This provides excellent insight into the reviewing process, is enjoyable and interesting. A list can be found here Kind regards, LT910001 (talk) 02:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for waiting. In conducting this review, I will:

• Provide an assessment using WP:GARC
• If this article does not meet the criteria, explain what areas need improvement.
• Provide possible solutions that may (or may not) be used to fix these.

Assessment

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.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
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.
	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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. 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. 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.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Commentary

Sorry for taking so long. This article is a little hard to understand, and I'd value if you could expand the 'context' part of the first section of the article. I'd also be grateful if you could standardise the way citations are displayed, expand the URL citations, and mark any that are Polish as Polish. Once these are done I'll leave some more comments and more fully evaluate the review, but I don't anticipate anything that would prevent promotion. Kind regards, --LT910001 (talk) 01:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

@LT910001: I believe all have been done. Please see [1]. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:18, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Piotrus, and the wait. I've provided my review below. --LT910001 (talk) 05:00, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Review

This is a well-written and well-researched article that will almost definitely be promoted to GA. Some minor comments:

• I have yet to verify the sources, which I will do and update tomorrow.
  • Verified what I can (do not have access to the books). The first source does not have a page number
• In the absence of a link to Walter M. Cummins, I'd be grateful if you could prefix his name by his profession (eg "Author Walter M. cummins...")
• As a GA this article should have a consistent style of citations. They are currently in a variety of styles, eg some books have day/month/year and other have year dates, dates recorded in different formats, some dates are duplicated, publishers are abbreviated and not, etc. One way to make them consistent would just be to replace them all with the automatically-generated wikipedia citations using the "Cite" tool. If you don't know about this, you can input the ISBN and a book's citation will be automatically generated. I know this is a frustrating requirement but if you think of this process as adding the finishing touches to a masterpiece, that may help.

I have no other comments. Once the source have been verified and citations standardised, I'll promote the article. Kind regards, --LT910001 (talk) 05:00, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll try to fix those soon. I cannot add a page number as I don't have physical access to the book as well and Google Books for some reason does not list a page number in snippet view (the quote can be verified here: [2]). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:19, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

@LT910001: I think I fixed the above. Please let me know which specific refs still nead cleanup. Websites sometimes provide specific day of publications; some however don't even give a year. For books all were standardized to the common year only format. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:53, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Great, thanks for your changes. This article is well-written and meets the GA criteria, so I'm promoting it and have made the necessary changes. Well done!

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rejtan (painting). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www3.uj.edu.pl/alma/alma/45/01/13.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)