| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
The article received plenty of love in the last couple of months, it rose from this sub-stub to its' present state as GA. I believe it is reasonably well-sourced and definitely detailed. It also received plenty of copy-editing from some native speakers. However, I'm wondering what else could be improved before I nominate it for FA status.
Any help would be appreciated, thanks in advance, //Halibutt 01:35, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- I'd encourage you to list the article at milhist A-class review page (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:47, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program
Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
- Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.[?]
- As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use th; for example, instead of (if such appeared in the article) using January 30th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.[?]
- Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.[?]
- Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
- 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 ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas.
A few comments, not a complete review:
- "Russian tsar Nicholas I, who has been deposed of Polish throne in January 1831 by the Sejm (Polish parliament).": "had been". "deposed" usually means that a person no longer rules anywhere. If "Polish throne" is right (I'm not sure), it would be "the Polish throne".
- "Russian forces surprised the Poles in that the main aim of their attack was the strongest Polish position in the suburb of Wola, while the Poles expected": Russian forces surprised the Poles by attacking the strongest Polish position in the suburb of Wola; the Poles were expecting
- "In 19th century": In the 19th century
- "incited a wave of sympathy towards the Poles and the Polish question": garnered [or inspired] sympathy for the Poles and their quest for independence. - Dank (push to talk) 04:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- "The Congress of Vienna obliged Emperor Alexander I of Russia, in his role as King of Poland, to issue a constitution to the newly recreated Polish state under Russian domination. While the resulting Constitution of the Kingdom of Poland was among the most liberal constitutions in the world at the time": Congress Poland agrees: "political autonomy guaranteed by a liberal constitution". But the first sentence doesn't seem quite right; was the Russian government free to put whatever it wanted in the constitution? Was it obligated to grant Poland a form of political autonomy? If the language of the Final Act of the Congress of Vienna seems vague on this point, then we might want to quote it so we can see the vagueness.
- "freedom of press": freedom of the press - Dank (push to talk) 19:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)