Talk:Bronze- and Iron-Age Poland

What an excellent start! I've made some tweaks for improved clarity and emphasis that should be self-explanatory. I've not intended to change any information. Some queries that might be addressed are commented out in the text. A link to the poorly-named Pre-Roman Iron Age to the west would help ties this article to artticles outside this area. --Wetman 15:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bronze and Iron Age Poland/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

This article requires a significant improvement before it meets the good article criteria; therefore it has failed its nomination. Issues include:

• Sections should be second-level (==) not third-level (===)
• References required:
  • "The nature of the weapons"
  • "East of the Unetice culture"
  • "The above cultures constitute"
  • "thrived in western Polish lands "
  • most of "Lusatian culture of the later Bronze Age"
  • most of "Lusatian culture of the early Iron Age"
  • most of "Pomeranian culture, Western Baltic Kurgans culture"

Gary King (talk) 06:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Should this article be split into Bronze Age of Poland and Iron Age of Poland?ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 20:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

The reason I put it together is that the main archeological culture in Poland around that time, the Lusatian culture, spans across both the Bronze and Iron ages, so in case of Poland seems more natural to lump the two together for the description purpose. Orczar (talk) 13:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bronze and Iron Age Poland/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I will be doing the GA review for this article. I am going to start by giving a list of general issues and putting the article on hold for seven days. Depending on the progress, I will decide whether to fail the article or continue with the review. If I choose the latter, I will give a list of more specific suggestions. Here are some general problems:

• According to WP:LEAD, the lead for an article this size should be approximately three full paragraphs summarizing all the main points of the article.
• Date ranges (and any number ranges, really) should use an endash rather than a dash. See WP:DASH for more information.
• This isn't required to pass GA by any means, but the Common Era is mentioned in the lead and a date with CE is used later on in the article, so it might be better to use BCE (before the common era) instead of BC for the other dates. In any event, it is more politically correct. That is my personal opinion, but I had to mention it. :)
• Pictures: the same picture that is in the infobox is also located elsewhere in the article. That seems a bit redundant. Also, all the pictures are in the bottom right of the article. Is it all possible to spread them out? I understand the difficulty in getting pictures (especially free use), so this one isn't required for GA either...just a suggestion.

That shouldn't be too difficult, but as I said, the article will be on hold for seven days to allow for improvements. I've put this page on my watchlist, so if you have any questions, you can post them here. Nikki♥311 01:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

The seven days are up, so I am failing this article for lack of progress. Nikki♥311 19:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

• Comments. As of early April revision, lead is three para long. The usage of picture in the infobox and article makes sense considering that the article picture has full quotation. It would make little sense to make a dedicated infobox just for this article, wouldn't it? I've spread the pictures around. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

• GA Review at Talk:Bronze- and Iron-Age Poland/GA3. Good luck! Ling.Nut (talk) 12:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)Reply