Talk:Henryk Sienkiewicz/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 07:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 07:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments

I've now done a very quick initial read of this nomination, but I've not checked any citations / references nor copyright status of images, and on this basis it appears to be at or about GA-level. However, there is a {{disambiguation}} flag that aught to be addressed.

I'm now started a more detailed review of the article against WP:WIAGA, starting at the Life section and finishing with the Lead. This is likely to take another day or so, at least. Pyrotec (talk) 18:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• Life -
  • Early years & Travels abroad -

• These two subsections look OK.

• • Return to Poland -

Krynica has a {{disambiguation}} flag dated May 2013. It would be helpful if this could be addressed.

• Otherwise, this subsection looks OK.

• • Later years -

....Stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 19:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm traveling out of town at the moment in remote areas with limited Internet access, should be able to address above in a few days. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. I hope to finish this part of the review either today or tomorrow; and then I'll wait for your return. Pyrotec (talk) 12:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• • Later years & Death -

• These two subsections look OK.

• Work -

• This section looks OK.

• Recognition & Selected works -

• These two sections look OK.

• WP:Lead -

• For an article of this length the lead is rather "thin", so I'm not too convinced that it is compliant with WP:Lead as it makes no attempt to summarise some of the material given in the body of the article, such as Sienkiewicz's (paid for) travels abroad. I'd like to see a bit more detail in the summary, so I'd suggest that it be expanded to three paragraphs and his travels abroad (and Nobel prize) be added. Pyrotec (talk) 17:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

At this point I'm putting the review "On Hold". In order to make GA-status the lead needs to be addressed and once that has been done I'll award it a GA. The disambiguation aught to be addresses, but its not mandatory to achieve GA. Pyrotec (talk) 17:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

@Pyrotec - thanks for the review, I expanded the lead and piped the disambig. I hope it is fine now, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:21, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. It's much better now. Pyrotec (talk) 19:27, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

An informative and well referenced article.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I'm awarding this article GA-status. Congratulations on a "fine" article. Pyrotec (talk) 19:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)