# Talk:Korzeniacy, czyli Jesień wsamrazków

This review is transcluded from Talk:Korzeniacy, czyli Jesień wsamrazków/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Piotrus (talk · contribs) 12:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Benji man (talk · contribs) 12:05, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 

Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 

B. 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): 
Most sources are hard to access, but seem reliable.
C. It contains no original research: 

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 
It may be good to expand the plot summary a bit.
B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Congratulations!

@Piotrus: Is there any way the lead of the article can be expanded? It's particularly short for a Good Article, and leaves out a fair amount of interesting and notable details from the plot and reception sections described in the body. Cheers! Johnson524 23:05, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

@Johnson524 Sure. I've expanded it with some plot summary. Anything from reception you'd like to see mentioned that isn't already? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:14, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
@Piotrus: There really should be a mention about why this book has lasting impact/is notable. Something which tells the reader why this book in particular deserves to be on Wikipedia, not just a plot synopsis and theme. Everything else is a major improvement though and thank you! Cheers from North Carolina 🙂 Johnson524 05:11, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
@Johnson524 Well, in all honesty - and per sources cited -this book did not have a lasting impact. It is notable by the virtue of having been reviewed, mostly around the time it was published, but it is, well, reasonably forgotten otherwise. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:33, 4 September 2025 (UTC)