Talk:Stanisław Staszic/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 02:09, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Piotr, I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:09, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments

This looks solid and close to ready for promotion. Thanks a lot for your work on it! I'm always awed by your prolific contributions.

Broadly speaking, my main suggestion is to add a bit more context to make the article more accessible to a foreign reader. I realize much of this information is linked in other articles, but it's helpful to add a clarifying phrase or two in the article itself for ease of reading. Specific points are noted below.

I also made some minor copyedits as I went; please have a look to be sure that I didn't inadvertently introduce any errors, and feel free to revert anything you disagree with.

• I'd suggest defining some of the specialized terms as you go (sejm, Szlachta, magnates, etc.). These could be defined in parentheticals, appositive phrases, explanatory footnotes, etc.
• I'd also add a brief phrase explaining who Zamoyski is.
• When discussing SS's proposed govt reforms, it would be helpful to add a sentence or two making it clear what system of government ruled Poland in his day, for context.
• What is the Kościuszko Uprising--can you add a 5- to 10-word explanation?
• "After the partitions of Poland, " -- since these took place over 23 years, this is a little vague. Maybe, "After the Third Partition of Poland"? I'd also suggest adding a brief phrase like, "--in which Russia, Prussia, and Austria seized much of the Commonwealth's territory--"
• Can you clarify in a quick phrase what "Congress Poland" was?

Checklist

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.	A bit more historical context would make the text clearer for international readers. Sources are unavailable for copyright spot checks, but happily accepted in good faith.
	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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	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.	File:Stanisław Staszic.PNG and File:Portret Staszica w granatowym fraku.jpg need tags for their US copyright status.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass

Most issues should be fixed (inc. pics). I improved the link from magnates to Magnates of Poland and Lithuania, not sure how to explain it better. Not sure if we have room to discuss the political system of Poland, it was very complex; I added the link to Golden Liberty under the "inefficient governance". Let me know what else I can do. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)