Talk:Trans-Olza/GA1

GA Reassessment

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.

Just a few minor issues with this generally excellent article:

There is a request for citation apparently dating back to April 2007 in the second paragraph of Part of Poland (1938–1939).

Dates are not handled consistently. Sometimes they're given autoformatted in the American style [[October 1]] [[1938]], sometimes they're autoformatted in the international style [[31 October]] [[1918]], and sometimes they're not autoformatted at all. I'd suggest removing all the date autoformatting, but if the American style is going to be preferred for this article then there should also be a comma between the day number and the year, as in October 1, 1938.

The article needs to decide whether to use American English spelling (as in center), or British English spelling (as in behaviour).

"Poles became a minority, which they are to this day." Presumably this means as at 2008? Need to be careful about making undated statements like that.

--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All issues solved. I just don't know how to reformat the sentence you mention, if the change is really needed. - Darwinek (talk) 10:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- "... to this day" needs to be clarified. Who said so, when did they say it?

- There are too many long quotes that need to be paraphrased. Victor S. Mamatey, for instance, is almost entirely made up of two long quotations.

- Where does the quotation in the first paragraph of Richard M. Watt end?

- If the transcluded {{Borders of Poland}} template is to appear in the lead then it must be right-aligned and integrated into the text.

--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 12:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a non-controversial statement. Just see the [[Polish minority in Zaolzie]] wiki article. It is dumb to use "as of 2008" form. The minority will be there every next year, it will not disappear in the moment.

Borders of Poland is used correctly. I don't see a problem with it.

I will look at the quotes though. - Darwinek (talk) 13:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the Mamatey ones, as this was quite simple. Problem with Watt is I fear losing some of the information by restructuring his quotes, as they are quite specific. Do you have any ideas? - Darwinek (talk) 13:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with the restructuring you've done, so the Watt quotation can be left now as far as I'm concerned.

Please see Wikipedia:Navigation templates. Borders of Poland should appear on the righthand side of the page, as in History of China. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the {{History of China}} template? - Darwinek (talk) 18:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that template as it appears in the History of China article, right-aligned, yes. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Borders of Poland template always appeared and still appears on the top right side of the text. - Darwinek (talk) 19:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just realised why we've been talking at cross-purposes about this Borders of Poland template. I've just upgraded to the latest version of Firefox, 3.0.1, and it looks fine now, so apparently the centred template I was seeing was down to a bug in Firefox. Thanks for the work you've done on this article; I've closed the review now. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]