Wikipedia:Peer review/History of Poland (1945-1989)/archive1
Another article that is close to FAC status. What do you think? And I can't decide which pic should be moved to lead (and eventualy featured on main page together with article) - suggestions appreciated. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:46, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- The article is good, but not particularly well written. Also, there are numerous grammatical errors. For instance, you should refer to the Western Allies as the Western Allies and not just Western Allies. These are simple mistakes, but FAs should be very close to perfect. The prose is good, but not "brilliant". Also, it's 47 KB long, which gets really tiring to read. Perhaps this period could be broken down further? And there is only one reference, and the article is far too long for only one. The article is good and I don't mean to harp on it, but the nature of this page is to accentuate the negative. Keep up the good work.--naryathegreat | (talk) 02:16, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
- Nice one again, Piotr. Grammar errors should be corrected, of course, but those are details. The lead is too long, I think. Also, I'm sure more books have been written on Polish history, a few more references would add a lot. -- Cugel 08:09, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
- Tnx for the comments. I will add some more references. Grammatical errorors sould be corrected, of course, but not being a native speaker I am not a specialist in this regard so this will have to wait for somebody with feel of English language niuances to come and polish it up. Lead is long, true, but consider it is the 'history of a country' series and remember the Wikipedia 1.0 guideline that lead should be a complete summary - I feel it is ok, although I will try to trim it down of excessive adjectives and such. As for 47kb size, well, you know I feel that the 32kb is the *minimum* limit for FA comprehensivness, and I have pushed through FAs over 60kbs :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 09:50, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- 30KB is the point where the length of an article may be indicative of it being too long (markup and other non-prose text should not be counted toward that though). Going significantly above that carries a burden of proof that the extra detail is so necessary that including it outweighs the negative aspects of increasing reading time. Above all else quality should come before quantity. It is harder to be comprehensive with less text, but doing so is better for the reader. --mav
- FAs: History of post-Soviet Russia is 67kb, History of Russia is 70kb, History of Scotland is 55kb. Eventually, yes, I believe each existing section should have its own article, and no article should be above 100kb, but if we were to demand that country histories are taken down to 30kb or below, we would get a dumbed down summary. And if reader wants a short summary, this is what the lead is for. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:01, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- 30KB is the point where the length of an article may be indicative of it being too long (markup and other non-prose text should not be counted toward that though). Going significantly above that carries a burden of proof that the extra detail is so necessary that including it outweighs the negative aspects of increasing reading time. Above all else quality should come before quantity. It is harder to be comprehensive with less text, but doing so is better for the reader. --mav
Nice article. I've made one or two tiny grammatical changes. Can a "nationalist tendency of a peculiar Communist sort" be clarified; I don't understand what that is? --RobertG ♬ talk 16:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I am not that sure myself, I rewrote it into 'a peculiar nationalist-communistic ideology' which I think is what this was supposed to mean. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)