Talk:Polish proverbs/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs) 16:05, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I will review this article for GA.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

Everything here is adequate for a GA. See below for further comments and feedback.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The prose is adequate for a GA and appears to be a good start to summarizing the topic. The lead should be longer and summarize the content of the article better, though, so please expand it. The template at the bottom of the page is full of red links due to transclusion issues, but it looks like there are movements to solve the problem, so I'll overlook it for this review. One picky point: I think you should introduce the concept of paremiology earlier and link it.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Many of the references are in Polish, so I'm assuming good faith that they fulfill the GA requirements.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Broad enough for a GA.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   I like the current media; they're well tagged and have good captions. If you expand the article, you may be able to add more images.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Nice start with an interesting topic. It was fun to learn about it. Follow my few suggestions, especially regarding the lead, and I'll pass this to GA.

This article has a lot of potential; I suggest that you improve its broadness by conducting more research and by doing a better job at mining and using your current sources. For now, it's adequate for GA, but if you want to do justice to the topic, I suggest that you make enough improvements to eventually bring this article to FAC. The current verion of this article isn't at all broad enough for FAC. You'll also need to solve the afore-mentioned transclusion problems.

@Figureskatingfan: Thank you for the review, I've expanded the lead. I certainly agree this is not ready for FA, which would require a much more throughout review of the literature and a major expansion of this article, my intention was to outline the topic for future editors. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:56, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Like I said, lots of potential. And nice start; you did a good job doing what you set out to do: expanding a notable and neglected topic past the stub-class, to ensure that it survives. I encourage that you're one of those future editors. ;) I would've expanded the lead more, but I'll promote the article to GA. Congrats, and keep up the good work. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:31, 5 June 2022 (UTC)