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

Reviewer: Eviolite (talk · contribs) 03:58, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will be reviewing this article in the next few days. eviolite (talk) 03:58, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• Sourcing is good - academic sources and books.
• Layout: Further reading should go above External links
• Images: Second image is fine. First image: c:COM:BOOK suggests recent book covers are not allowed unless below the TOO, and c:COM:TOO Poland suggests it is low, though I am not entirely sure and have asked at c:COM:VPCOPY. Per VPCOPY it is below TOO and fine, so images are good.

Prose:

• MOS:REDUNDANCY, in my opinion the first sentence is too redundant ("Polish language", and "Dictionaries" vs "Reference works") so suggest replacing with something about the history of the dictionaries
  • We could remove it but I do like starting an article with a definition, and I'd prefer to keep this. This is also a short description, which should be identical to the first sentence... a sublead? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:34, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • In any case I don't really see how that lead sentence helps the reader - it's not really defining anything since it's evident from the component words what the title means (it's not a counterintuitive phrase or anything). The only change between the title and the definition/description is "dictionary" is changed to "reference work", which is only helpful if readers do not know what a dictionary is but do know what a reference desk is. MOS:FIRST specifically states that However, if the article title is merely descriptive—such as Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers—the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text which in my opinion definitely applies in this case (a similar X of Y construction), and as originally mentioned MOS:REDUNDANCY says that the first sentence should include info not in the title. Similarly, there doesn't have to be a short description if the title is descriptive enough, which I feel like this one is, though that's less visible so not as important (and not necessary for GA). eviolite (talk) 07:12, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

      Hmmm, so like this? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:49, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

      Looks good to me. eviolite (talk) 16:48, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Add a "the" to the beginning of the second sentence
  • Both sentences seem fine for Grammarly, shrug, done. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:34, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• The lead says "most" dictionaries are named simply, but the body says "many" and the source only says at least six so it should be changed in the lead
• Would the section titles be clearer as "Bilingual dictionaries", "General dictionaries", etc?
  • I am ambivalent - isn't this obvious? MOS:REDUNDANCY you mentioned? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:34, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • MOS:REDUNDANCY is specifically for the lead sentence, but sure, it doesn't matter too much. eviolite (talk) 07:12, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't see where "likely created for the Prince Alexander of Masovia" is coming from - I see that it was published in something that says "dedicated to Alexander of Masovia", but that was in 1960 and I'm not sure if that is specifically referring to Wokabularz trydencki.
  • I am unsure what is unclear here. The sentence is about the Wokabularz t... which is from 1424 and was dedicated to said Prince (can chance created for to dedicate, perhaps). Where do you see the date 1960?? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:34, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see where in the source that it says the dictionary's dedicated to Alexander of Masovia. It only mentions it was published in a source "Liber disparata antiqua continens", Alexandro Masoviensi, episcopo Tridentino dicatus, which seems to read "dedicated to Alexander of Masovia, bishop of Trent", but that is presumably the title given by the editor E. Winkler in 1960 when it was written? I really am not sure though and either way I don't think this can be used to say it was created for Alexander, unless there is a more conclusive source saying that. eviolite (talk) 07:12, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

      @Eviolite I looked into this more (found a good analysis here, in Polish). The issue is quite complicated, and it seems there is no consensus among scholars what,exactly, was AoM's relation to this work. There are those who argue he was an author of the work, or one of them, others who say he was not involved with it at all, those who say he was just the organizer or sponsor of the project, those who say he was the owner of the book, and those who argue for some combination of this. I have changed our text to say that the volume was associated with AoM, which is certainly supported by the sources. If we had a subarticle about the book, I'd be fine moving this claim there, but for now I think it can wait here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:46, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

      Nice find. I've added that paper as a citation in the text.

• I assume "Silesian" is referring to Silesian language which should be linked
  • Actually, it's just referring to the region the book was printed, so linked to Silesia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:34, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "The first such dictionary, entitled Słownik języka polskiego [pl]," - this is redundant as the sentence before introduces the title; consider having the interlanguage link on "The first such dictionary" and removing the "entitled ..." instead
  • I see your point - done, although I am not sure if this is ideal (we have a weird red link now...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:34, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's fair. I'm not sure what the best way to do this is. eviolite (talk) 07:12, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "Some of the more notable" - why are these more notable? If there's nothing specific this should be changed (WP:EDITORIAL)
• I can't find where the source says the 1958-1969 one was the first major one after WWII (though I don't know Polish). It seems though that it does say the dictionary was developed with the support of the postwar government, which I think can be added instead.
  • Right, that could be editorializing, I removed "the first one"; instead the source calls it a classic which I've added to the text. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:34, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for my comments. @Piotrus: placing on hold. Thanks, eviolite (talk) 19:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Eviolite Thank you, I'll try to work on this over the next few days. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Eviolite First pass done, see comments above (other minor issues are fixed, I didn't comment on them). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:34, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: Thanks, responded inline. eviolite (talk) 07:12, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: Thanks for the changes and replies. Happy to promote this to GA now; great work! eviolite (talk) 16:48, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]