Talk:Stanisław Poniatowski (1676–1762)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: DCI2026 (talk · contribs) 20:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will review on a section-by-section basis for content quality as per GA standards. A preliminary checklist will be placed at the bottom when I'm done (hopefully, by Fri., Oct. 18. dci | TALK 20:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

A copyedit is needed here. The sentences are rather choppy, and a check for correct capitalization is needed (e.g. Familia). dci | TALK 20:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A longer lead with more personal information, less on each office he held, and a little more on his overall impact on Polish-Lithuanian history would be helpful for this article. dci | TALK 20:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- I've done some c/e to lead. I don't think anything in the position should be cut, and I also don't see what is missing - but you are welcome to make more specific suggestions, or edit the lead yourself. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit notice

I will be copyediting the other sections today and will complete the review between tonight and tomorrow. dci | TALK 20:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The process is taking a bit long; I have extended the c/e to the remaining sections. dci | TALK 02:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pass

I'm inclined to pass the article; I'll have a checklist up by tomorrow. dci | TALK 00:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, this evening. dci | TALK 22:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Take your time, I am in no hurry :) Thrice the charm? :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I suppose so. dci | TALK 19:21, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'll give it another couple days, and if it's not completed I'll do the review. It's not that long an article, no reason for such a delay. Wizardman 23:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

This article has passed its GA review.

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
The article is well-written, though it would be wise to keep an eye out for grammar and usage in some cases.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
No problems whatsoever in this regard.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
The article is reasonably broad, while remaining appropriate in its biographical coverage.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
No problems whatsoever here.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Again, not even an issue.
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
All appears well in regard to pictures and related copyrights.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
A well-written article. I would double-check in some areas for grammar and usage consistency. My sincere apologies for the inappropriate delay. dci | TALK 02:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]