Talk:Janusz Zajdel/GA1

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

Reviewer: Wugapodes (talk · contribs) 03:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Will review. Wugapodes (talk) 03:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:  

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:  

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:  

   B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:  

   C. No original research:  

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:  

   B. Focused (see summary style):  

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:  

5. Is it stable?

   Noedit wars, etc:  

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

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

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:  

1. "On 19 July 1985, after three years' struggle against the disease, he died of lung cancer" The lung cancer bit should come first.

   Done. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

2. "Increasingly visible theme in his works was the concern over dangers inherent in attempts to control the human society." I'm unclear what this sentence means. Since he's not writing, how can there be an "increasingly visible" theme?

   I meant, compared to his early works. I hope the current wording makes it more clear. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

3. "has been described" by whom? See WP:WEASEL

   But the sentence is clearly referenced. I've added a quotation. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

• The "Awards" section could have the prose tightened but it's not enough to quarrel over in a GA review.
• The article relies very heavily on a singular source. This may cause problems later on but, from the looks of it, it seems to be rather comprehensive. Maybe work on getting more sources, perhaps off-line.
  • @Wugapodes: For GA+ levels, I agree we should try to expand it; but frankly I was not able to locate better sources (if I could, I'd have added them to Further Reading). There is some material in introductions and such, written to his novels by other writers, particularly in the editions after his death. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

On Hold for 7 days pending changes.

Listed after the changes made. I would suggest trying to find some of those introductions and maybe incorporate them into the article to make it more comprehensive, especially if you're going for FA. Keep up the good work! Wugapodes (talk) 15:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC)Reply