Talk:War of the Galician Succession (1205–1245)/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Nominator: Polish Piast (talk · contribs) 17:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Borsoka (talk · contribs) 09:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
- 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):
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
According to WP:GAFAIL 3: "An article may fail without further review (known as a quick fail) if, prior to the review: ... It has ... cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include ... large numbers of "citation needed" [tags]..." Nederlandse Leeuw raised possible WP:OR and WP:SYNTH issues at the article's talk page. Although I am not convinced that the article represents original synthesis, I think their concerns are valid and are to be addressed before the GAN. Further issues:
- references 18, 29 and 55 are to be fixed. Borsoka (talk) 09:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- File:Даниил Галицкий на памятнике 1000-летия России.jpg: source is unclear at Commons; copyright status is unclear.
- File:Печать Романа II Великого.png: copyright status is unclear.
- File:Даниил Галицкий.png: copyright status is unclear.
- File:Seal of Mstislav Mstislavich Udatny.png: copyright status is unclear.
- File:Мстислав Удатный выгоняет венгерского королевича из Галича.png: copyright status is unclear.
- File:KOnrad.jpg: US PD tag is needed at Commons.
- File:Konrad I Mazowiecki seal 1218.PNG: US PD tag is needed.
- File:Facial Chronicle - b.06, p.417 - Mikhail of Chernigov enthroned.png: the source is unclear at Commons.
- File:Ростислав Михайлович.png: copyright status is unclear.
- A map is needed to provide our readers with a geographical context. Borsoka (talk) 10:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oh wow. I think it is way too early to consider this article for GA status, as much as I appreciate the efforts taken in writing it. It has barely been vetted by the community yet. The few edits I, Setergh and Norden1990 made and issues I raised were only a start. There are other issues of secondary concern that I would like to raise at a later stage, but first I think we should address the concerns around naming and periodisation, which involve possible WP:OR or WP:SYNTH (as Borsoka pointed out above). We just need more time, probably a lot of small fixes and perhaps a few big ones, with constructive feedback where needed. I certainly can't do that on my own, we'll need probably about 10 people who examine this article thoroughly before GA comes into view. But never say never; it's ambitious but it could probably be done. NLeeuw (talk) 11:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I mean, Polski Piast is obviously the person trying to bring this to GA-class the most. But he seems to just be doing tons and tons randomly, so I don't know if he's really checking what he's doing. Also wasn't a fan of him randomly going onto my page practically demanding that I begin suddenly working on a page to raise it to GA-class seemingly without offering help and as if I still have motivation to edit consistently. Personally it just seems like he's in a random rush out of nowhere after at least a month of inactivity. Setergh (talk) 20:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oh wow. I think it is way too early to consider this article for GA status, as much as I appreciate the efforts taken in writing it. It has barely been vetted by the community yet. The few edits I, Setergh and Norden1990 made and issues I raised were only a start. There are other issues of secondary concern that I would like to raise at a later stage, but first I think we should address the concerns around naming and periodisation, which involve possible WP:OR or WP:SYNTH (as Borsoka pointed out above). We just need more time, probably a lot of small fixes and perhaps a few big ones, with constructive feedback where needed. I certainly can't do that on my own, we'll need probably about 10 people who examine this article thoroughly before GA comes into view. But never say never; it's ambitious but it could probably be done. NLeeuw (talk) 11:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)