Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Kraków/1
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:01, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
This 2009 listing contains significant uncited material throughout the article, meaning it does not meet GA criterion 2b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- Wait a sec. According to point 3 of the procedures before nomination for reassessment, you should
consider raising issues at the talk page of the article or requesting assistance from major contributors
. I see no evidence you did, and if there is a possibility of improvement, we should use it. - I have some knowledge about that city and plenty of access to Polish resources if needed, so let's resolve it without delisting. Tag the passages that are wrong and suggest any other improvements needed to retain the GA status. It will take some time, but sure, but we can do it. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- That is the point of this process Szmenderowiecki; I am glad to hear that you are willing to take an active role. As you are a subject-matter expert (or more so than I in any case), let's start with the general: do you think that the general organisation (layout, weighting, etc.) is good enough? For me, I am slightly concerned by the "Economy" section, which appears to be unduly focused on "Entrepreneurship"; do you agree? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- I'm a bit too busy, but I'll be back with a detailed reply shortly, I'll need to analyse some books for that to make an informed judgment. I want to strive to something like FAs of large cities (I'm working in my sandbox on Le Touquet, a French seaside resort of 5k people, and I'm using Kent, Ohio and Hamilton, Ontario as examples of what should I strive to. Btw, if you can update the Kent article with 2020 US census data, that would be great). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 17:14, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, the economy section is a shambles, it needs some serious rework. I compared it to an excellent section about the economy of Bristol (an FA). Also, no budgets existed since 2011? The lead is also IMHO a bit chaotic. When I'm able to edit from desktop, I'm gonna dive deeper.
- I'll look into this in the next couple of days or maybe weeks, maybe will do some ILLs to some history of Kraków books, of which I'm sure there's a lot. Maybe by that time I'll also finish the Le Touquet stuff. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 22:01, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- That is the point of this process Szmenderowiecki; I am glad to hear that you are willing to take an active role. As you are a subject-matter expert (or more so than I in any case), let's start with the general: do you think that the general organisation (layout, weighting, etc.) is good enough? For me, I am slightly concerned by the "Economy" section, which appears to be unduly focused on "Entrepreneurship"; do you agree? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- User:AirshipJungleman29, if you could tag the statements that concern you, I'll take a look and add cites. SilkTork (talk) 19:07, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- Hi SilkTork, I've done so. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. The first tag is on "The first acclaimed ruler of Poland, Mieszko I, took Kraków from the Bohemians and incorporated it into the holdings of the Piast dynasty towards the end of his reign." That sentence was not there during the GA assessment - it has been added since. I've just started looking, and this detail is not certain - there are some doubts about it. Given the uncertainties, and that the detail is not essential - it can be explored more fully (along with the uncertainties) in the History of Kraków article - I think it would be more appropriate to remove it. The essential fact is that "In 1038, Kraków became the seat of the Polish government", which is cited. SilkTork (talk) 23:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- Users interested in that period of Polish history, IIRC, are @Merangs and @Orczar - perhaps they can help. I can try to look for some soruces or verify stuff too - ping me if more help is needed (I'll try to address some cite needed to help, time permitting). It would be good to rescue this; the article is comprehensive but undercited. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:23, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Just noting here in case anyone's unaware: this GAR can remain open for three months as long as the article is being worked on. Feel free to take your time. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:41, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for pinging me. I wanted to address this issue myself some time ago. I will try to do my best over the coming week or so. Merangs (talk) 20:41, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Hello Merangs, do you intend to return to improving this article? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:25, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- @AirshipJungleman29: - Yes, however, it is disappointing to see that I am one of a very few users doing so and that I cannot dedicate a hundred percent of my time to this. Merangs (talk) 21:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- Hello Merangs, do you intend to return to improving this article? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:25, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for pinging me. I wanted to address this issue myself some time ago. I will try to do my best over the coming week or so. Merangs (talk) 20:41, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Just noting here in case anyone's unaware: this GAR can remain open for three months as long as the article is being worked on. Feel free to take your time. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:41, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Users interested in that period of Polish history, IIRC, are @Merangs and @Orczar - perhaps they can help. I can try to look for some soruces or verify stuff too - ping me if more help is needed (I'll try to address some cite needed to help, time permitting). It would be good to rescue this; the article is comprehensive but undercited. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:23, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. The first tag is on "The first acclaimed ruler of Poland, Mieszko I, took Kraków from the Bohemians and incorporated it into the holdings of the Piast dynasty towards the end of his reign." That sentence was not there during the GA assessment - it has been added since. I've just started looking, and this detail is not certain - there are some doubts about it. Given the uncertainties, and that the detail is not essential - it can be explored more fully (along with the uncertainties) in the History of Kraków article - I think it would be more appropriate to remove it. The essential fact is that "In 1038, Kraków became the seat of the Polish government", which is cited. SilkTork (talk) 23:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- Hi SilkTork, I've done so. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Rodney Baggins I noticed you have made some improvements; do you intend to continue? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:00, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- @AirshipJungleman29: I wasn't planning on doing any more, no – I just took an interest cos my son visited Kraków recently. I can do a bit more copyediting, and maybe a source review, if it would help, but can't promise it would happen any time soon. As we are all volunteers, it's sometimes difficult to get traction on these things, which I know can be a tad frustrating. Regards, Rodney Baggins (talk) 12:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.