Talk:Second Partition of Poland/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: - Adam37 Talk 15:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. 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).	16 extremely relevant sources, all of which appear properly formatted.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No first-person or on-the-ground sources are used for contestable statements, amounting to no original research in my view.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Compared to an average article on the context of territorial treaties 1750-1850, Second Partition of Poland is very well developed, adopts a international context tone of words and covers a significant degree of the notable facts, although is rigidly narrow and non-tangential, which in the light of the closely-linked other articles is in my view the preferred way of things, however perhaps to suggest further improvements certain connections to wide-reaching, long-term period events could be roughly outlined. In particular, for Featured Article status, the European contemporary context such as the burgeoning Western European height of the Russian Empire (I am not sure of its date) or the contemporary nascent, industrially and militarily advancing, further division of Continental Europe into four Great powers: Russia, France, Prussia and the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Indeed the ultimate carving up of Poland can seen as a land-grab among others of the formidable four belligerents in the midst of a thirty year period which saw the transfer of the Austrian Netherlands to France, the annexation of Spain, and that of most of Italy.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No deviations
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

• This article has no good article shortcomings in my view, having regard to all the good article criteria. Indeed no links are broken. The article has easy potential to reach featured article status subject to those criteria.

Reviewer: Adam37 (talk · contribs) 15:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Does it mean you are passing it, or is there still something left? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)