Talk:Władysław IV Vasa/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ajh1492 (talk) 12:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Review in progress

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   see below

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. 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):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

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

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   neu

DAB Links to fix on ..

Kopek

Pike

Polish-Swedish War (1600-1629) (redirect page)

Polish–Swedish War (1600–1629)

Richelieu

Sheaf

I agree with the following comments from the review tool ...

• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
• Avoid including galleries in articles, as per Wikipedia:Galleries. Common solutions to this problem include moving the gallery to wikicommons or integrating images with the text.^[?]
• This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, then an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.^[?]
• Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honor (A) (British: honour), organize (A) (British: organise), recognize (A) (British: recognise), realize (A) (British: realise), criticize (A) (British: criticise), isation (B) (American: ization), traveled (A) (British: travelled), travelled (B) (American: traveled), skillful (A) (British: skilful), curb (A) (British: kerb), program (A) (British: programme).
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
• The script has spotted the following contractions: wasn't, didn't, couldn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.

Ajh1492 (talk) 15:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Fixed most. Sheaf seems to me a correct link, PSW need to be turned into an article. I don't see any linked dates, "vague terms of size", nor A/B spelling problems; the script would be much more useful if it were to actually list potential words to check.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Does the reviewer have any further issues to note? Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I guess we will know soon: [1]. But if not, I'd appreciate another reviewer stepping in. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 15:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

One more look to make sure I didn't miss anything. Ajh1492 (talk) 15:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• A couple more observations ...

any additional details on "He was also heir to one of several Christian claims to the title of King of Jerusalem"?

a bit of an opinion in the following statement . . . "Likely, the failure of this campaign showed Władysław the limits of royal power in Poland, as major factors for the failure included significant autonomy of the military commanders"

Lede needs to better summarize the article - one interesting fact left out is his founding of the PLC Navy.

Ajh1492 (talk) 15:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• Removed the Jerusalem claim, I couldn't find any refers for it (meant to do it before, good catch).
• True, but it is a cited opinion.
• True, but PLC navy was minor and didn't last long. Will add the link to it to the lead, why not - but I am not sure what else is missing there. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Since everything checks out now on the reviewer's end, I'll go ahead and pass the article. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:43, 4 September 2011 (UTC)