Talk:Stańczyk (painting)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) 20:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• " In any measure, consensus among modern scholars is that such a person indeed existed and even if he did not, the figure had a tremendous importance to Polish culture of later centuries, appearing in the works of numerous artists." Later centuries, tremendous importance in 21st century? I only count 20th century since. maybe change to later had tremendous importance. Can you provide some examples?
  • I have added two ref'ed examples, for the 20th century, there's Wyspiański play from 1901 (I added date) already mentioned later. Aaarg, 99% of sources are Polish and thus not visible on Google Books; I'd really like to check Krzyżanowski's book, for example. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:15, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• (most notably, besides the painting discussed here, in Consecration of King Sigismund's Bell and Prussian Homage) Dates in brackets of those paintings?
  • Added. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:15, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• This painting was acquired by the Warsaw National Museum in 1924.[2] During World War II it was looted by the Nazis.[6] It was subsequently seized by the Soviet Union and returned to Poland around 1956.[8] -Please also put this info in the lead, it's important.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 20:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Done. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:15, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Ref 6 has a peculiar = in it, can you fix?. Also some of the dates are written in text other in digits, I'd rather they were in text and consistent. I'd also prefer that you list the authors by surname first, I think this is more common.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 14:50, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Fixed ref 6. Not sure what you mean about the dates, I see them all as similar (centuries, years). What am I missing? I am not sure how to make cite templates link the authors by surname, and since most the time I see first second order, I prefer not to mess up the metadata. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of 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 copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Yup, looks fine for GA now.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 20:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC)