Talk:Ryszard Siwiec/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 01:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Piotrus, I'll be glad to take this one. A fascinating, if ghastly, subject. Comments to follow soon; thanks as always for your work! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this looks good. Quite a haunting story, the way his act was almost lost to history; as an American, I've heard of Jan Palach in a vague way, but never of Siwiec. I made some minor changes as I went; feel free to revert any with which you disagree. Thanks for working on this one--this is probably the most interesting article I'll read this month, and I read a lot of articles.

*"and the only one in Polish history" -- does the source specifically say this? I know it talks about him, but I had trouble finding a spot where it says there were no other self-immolation protesters from Poland. Another problem is that this phrasing suggests no one else self-immolated in protest in all of Polish history, not just after the Prague invasion. Done -- double-checked source and clarified.

"Similar sentiments about the tragedy of forgetting about this incident were expressed by others, including Jan Nowak-Jeziorański.[5] " -- this is pretty vague. Is it possible to give more of a sense of JNJ's words here, perhaps giving a (translated) quotation?
- @User:Khazar2: I am glad you found the article interesting. It is indeed a very human story, which is why I decided to take a break from my usual themes and write this one out. I've added the full quote from JNJ to the article, let me know what you think about it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:36, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I cut the quotation back down to what seemed to me the most essential point--is that ok? Mostly I just wanted to move the "tragedy" part into his precise words. Anyway, thanks for adding this and your work on this one generally. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist[edit]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	~~See questions above~~
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass as GA