GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: North8000 ( talk · contribs) 02:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I am starting a review of this article. North8000 ( talk) 02:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Has no images. Would it be feasible to add an image or 2? If not that is fine, because the criteria says "if possible" Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 02:13, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I know that it's linked, but IMHO there should be at least a few word description of what a Concordat is. Without that, unless they went to the other article, an average person could read this article and not know what it is about. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 12:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Could you clarify what "who consider concordat to have only been ended by the Polish side by this declaration" means. Is it discussing who ended it? Or t that it is still in force or in force in one direction? North8000 ( talk) 13:56, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Under "negotiations", it is not clear which year it was ratified. Could you add the year to one or two of those dates? North8000 ( talk) 13:56, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
I would like to have a discussion regarding sources/sourcing. Nearly all of them are off-line and or in non-english languages....this is NOT per se a problem, but in combination with it appearing that the Concordat itself (a primary source and a very bare reference...is that what that means? ) being the most heavily used source, I would like to discuss the sources to put any questions in this areas to rest. I have other questions / things i'd like to discuss, but since there have been no responses to my 11 and 15 day old questions, I wanted to start by seeing that three is an editor actively involved. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 13:51, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Well-written
Factually accurate and verifiable
Broad in its coverage
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute
Illustrated, if possible, by images
Non-pass, as suggested by the nominator. This needs some work by and dialog with a main editor, and none is present/available. North8000 ( talk) 15:01, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: North8000 ( talk · contribs) 02:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I am starting a review of this article. North8000 ( talk) 02:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Has no images. Would it be feasible to add an image or 2? If not that is fine, because the criteria says "if possible" Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 02:13, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I know that it's linked, but IMHO there should be at least a few word description of what a Concordat is. Without that, unless they went to the other article, an average person could read this article and not know what it is about. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 12:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Could you clarify what "who consider concordat to have only been ended by the Polish side by this declaration" means. Is it discussing who ended it? Or t that it is still in force or in force in one direction? North8000 ( talk) 13:56, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Under "negotiations", it is not clear which year it was ratified. Could you add the year to one or two of those dates? North8000 ( talk) 13:56, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
I would like to have a discussion regarding sources/sourcing. Nearly all of them are off-line and or in non-english languages....this is NOT per se a problem, but in combination with it appearing that the Concordat itself (a primary source and a very bare reference...is that what that means? ) being the most heavily used source, I would like to discuss the sources to put any questions in this areas to rest. I have other questions / things i'd like to discuss, but since there have been no responses to my 11 and 15 day old questions, I wanted to start by seeing that three is an editor actively involved. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 13:51, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Well-written
Factually accurate and verifiable
Broad in its coverage
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute
Illustrated, if possible, by images
Non-pass, as suggested by the nominator. This needs some work by and dialog with a main editor, and none is present/available. North8000 ( talk) 15:01, 29 November 2013 (UTC)