Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Przemysł II/1
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.
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:38, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
Uncited statements throughout the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:38, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
FYI the relevant criteria is "reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged.... must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)". IMO concerns should be expressed in that context. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:15, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- @North8000: Content in good articles need to be cited. I am happy to add citation needed templates if requested, but there are some citation needed tags from 2018 that are unresolved. Z1720 (talk) 01:16, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
- I was not arguing either way, just for a clearly expressed-concern that uses the criteria as a guide. And so an uncited statement per se is not a violation. On another note, an unresolved CN tag is a whole different different thing than the general thoughts expressed here. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:44, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
- I'll see what I can do in terms of sourcing, but no promises. Regards, Grumpylawnchair (talk) 17:04, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
- Found one source that partially supports the statement but I don't know about the rest. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 16:17, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
- Pinging @Piotrus and @HełmPolski: Can either of you help? I'm sorry, I'm kind of grasping at straws here. Thanks, Grumpylawnchair (talk) 21:59, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
- I'll ping folks more familiar with that history period active on en wiki: @Merangs @Volunteer Marek @Orczar Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:24, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Piotrus: &@Grumpylawnchair: – I can try to fill the sections where the 'citations needed' notes are present in the text. Is there anything else that requires addressing? On a personal note, I think the footnotes/citations in the lead section make it very untidy and any referenced information there should already be in the body of the article. Merangs (talk) 16:51, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
- The uncited statements are the entire basis of this GAR. I could help you tidy up the lead if you deem it necessary. Thanks, Grumpylawnchair (talk) 20:35, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Merangs: On that note, the notes should probably be put in their own notelist instead of the reflist since it is unwieldy. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 20:37, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, notes and refs should not be mixed, good point. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:39, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Piotrus: & @Grumpylawnchair: – Just wanted to let you know that I was able to locate and place sources for the uncited passages in the article. Merangs (talk) 22:53, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Merangs: Thank you very much! I'll take care of separating the notes from the refs. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 22:57, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Piotrus: The article probably needs a good copyedit (maybe someone should place a request to the Guild of Copyeditors), especially the footnotes, and a lot of the info in the footnotes can be moved into the prose. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 23:32, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Piotrus: @Merangs: @HełmPolski: Honestly, some of the sources need replacing. Polskie Radio, while usually reliable, is not a good source for a history article. The sources to news articles should ideally be replaced. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 21:46, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
- For a copyedit, I would ping @Nihil novi, although I am not sure if they'd be interested in this topic. My skills are not a good match for this particular problem. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:23, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Piotrus: The article probably needs a good copyedit (maybe someone should place a request to the Guild of Copyeditors), especially the footnotes, and a lot of the info in the footnotes can be moved into the prose. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 23:32, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Merangs: Thank you very much! I'll take care of separating the notes from the refs. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 22:57, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Piotrus: & @Grumpylawnchair: – Just wanted to let you know that I was able to locate and place sources for the uncited passages in the article. Merangs (talk) 22:53, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, notes and refs should not be mixed, good point. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:39, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Merangs: On that note, the notes should probably be put in their own notelist instead of the reflist since it is unwieldy. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 20:37, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
- The uncited statements are the entire basis of this GAR. I could help you tidy up the lead if you deem it necessary. Thanks, Grumpylawnchair (talk) 20:35, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Piotrus: &@Grumpylawnchair: – I can try to fill the sections where the 'citations needed' notes are present in the text. Is there anything else that requires addressing? On a personal note, I think the footnotes/citations in the lead section make it very untidy and any referenced information there should already be in the body of the article. Merangs (talk) 16:51, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
- I was going to take a look, but it seems you've resolved the issue :) HełmPolski (talk) 20:21, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
- I'll ping folks more familiar with that history period active on en wiki: @Merangs @Volunteer Marek @Orczar Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:24, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
- Pinging @Piotrus and @HełmPolski: Can either of you help? I'm sorry, I'm kind of grasping at straws here. Thanks, Grumpylawnchair (talk) 21:59, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
- Found one source that partially supports the statement but I don't know about the rest. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 16:17, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Merangs, Piotrus, Grumpylawnchair, and HełmPolski: there is still uncited material throughout the article, if any of you are up for referencing it inline? Thanks, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:31, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
- Delist. It's been over a month since the last significant edit and there is still lots of uncited statements. Z1720 (talk) 14:51, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
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.