This review is transcluded from Talk:W leju po bombie/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Piotrus (talk · contribs) 15:31, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: SSSB (talk · contribs) 10:17, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take on this review. SSSB (talk) 10:17, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• not necessary for GA promotion the lead is incredibly short, even for a relatively short article. It could do with some beefing up, perhaps with info about reception, or a slightly more detailed plot summary. SSSB (talk) 11:29, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Source 4 is not reliable, as far as I can tell the content is suffiently cited in source 3, so source 4 can be removed without being replaced. SSSB (talk) 11:29, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• not necessary for promotion "it has been accessible on its archived version." this sentence reads weird. Can I suggest simply "it has been accessible in website archives". SSSB (talk) 11:29, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• The URL for source 11 appears to be incorrect and should be changed to https://andrzejsapkowski.pl/maladie-i-inne-opowiadania/ . SSSB (talk) 11:29, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• not necessary for GA promotion the article doesn't currently have any images. Perhaps one of the author could be added? SSSB (talk) 11:29, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• As specified in Wikipedia:Quotations, Quotations should be in quotation marks, not in italics. SSSB (talk) 11:33, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: Article looks good. Just a couple of minor sourcing issues to be addressed before it can be promoted. Will place on hold to allow these to take place. SSSB (talk) 11:29, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SSSB Thank you for the review.

Lead expanded.

Source four (encyklopediafantastyki.pl) is situationally reliable (AFAIK it has not been discussed at RSN; I am quite familiar with it). It could be removed, but it offers a quick confirmation; source 3 does not cite the issue/volume information for the original publication. Of course, we could just change this to the magazine itself, but I am not sure if PRIMARY is better (plus, again, I don't think there is consensus this source is unreliable - it is not SPS, it's a closed wiki with some editorial controls and notable contributors).

I revised the "archive" - simplified it, as AFAIK this is still the same official website, it just had a weird redesign in 2017 (the owner migrated it to a new domain, and made it look worse for some reason...).

Ref 11 fixed.

Pic added, we don't have many to choose from :(

Quotations fixed. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:48, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did a deeper dive into source 4, and am convinced enough to let good faith take me over the line. All the changes look good, so I am happy to promote. Congratulations on another good article. SSSB (talk) 12:05, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]