Talk:Góra Kalwaria

Góra Kalwaria was nominated as a Geography and places good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (April 16, 2025, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

GA review

Unsuccessful. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 17:52, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Góra Kalwaria/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Setergh (talk · contribs) 15:29, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Szmenderowiecki (talk · contribs) 17:51, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm going to review the article for this town near Warsaw for GA criteria. As a template to what we should strive, I chose several cities, both FA and GA, of comparable population to Góra Kalwaria. These are the following FAs - Lock Haven, Pennsylvania, Skegness, Arlington, Washington, Kent, Ohio and GAs - Glastonbury, Morpeth, Northumberland, Ely, Cambridgeshire and Cortina d'Ampezzo

Overall

Failed "good article" nomination

This article has failed its Good article nomination. This is how the article, as of April 16, 2025, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: ?

2. Verifiable?: ?

3. Broad in coverage?: no

4. Neutral point of view?: yes

5. Stable?: yes

6. Images?: ?

Immediately, I can say that I like this article enough for it to be a GA. Any problems with style (of which there are a lot) can be remedied through reading up on the Manual of Style. However, the main problem I have with this article is that it isn't really thorough, and some sources are just plain bad. You can compare the scope of articles that I mentioned earlier - you can use them as a template, even if, for example, the article about Ely has a bloated lead, just as here. The point is, that's what should be more or less expected of a GA. Unfortunately, in a lot of places, visiting the tourist webpage of the municipality gives me more information about the town than this article does. The section about life during World War I is sourced only to a webpage of a local hotel, and there are definitely much better sources out there than that. Even if it's from a local historian. The Polish Wikipedia says that a school for the border guards was in the town, but there's not a word about it. At times, though, the article also veers off-topic - for example, the article says that a paper mill started operation in Jeziorna, but that's 15 km away and there's no explanation why this may be relevant; the Modern day section is a mess - I don't understand why it exists. There are no contemporary population stats, the education lists all schools in the municipality, even if outside the town, no information about transports and so on.

You did a good job so far, but that's not enough to even start the review, because the basic problem is that it doesn't really have the required breadth of information. For me, that's not good, because that means that not enough research was done, and no amount of corrections according to MoS and common sense will hide it.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— Szmenderowiecki (talk) 17:51, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.