# Talk:History of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth (1569–1648)

"Cossack uprising" would be a disambiguation page. "Cossack uprisings" serves as a list of uprisings.
Orczar (talk) 13:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

During the B-class review for WikiProject Poland, I determined that the article seems to me to meet the criteria for the B-class. A WP:GA nomination could be considered. Good job! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  18:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:History of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth (1569–1648)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ajh1492 (talk) 16:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs some work before it becomes a Good Article.
Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 
see below
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): 

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: 

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: 
Passed

Comments
This is going to take a couple passes to get through due to the size of the subject matter. Ajh1492 (talk) 21:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The Lede needs to better summarize the subject matter, for this length (and complexity) of material I'd expect 2X larger.
You really want to put references in the Lede? The Lede is supposed to be just a summary of points covered in the article.
You might want to have a set of see also tags throughout the article.
"Unexpectedly, Henry of Valois ended up a winner." - How was it unexpected?
Clunky transition from Henry Valois to discussing the elected kings - you might want to move that paragraph to the top of the section.
MORE TO COME Ajh1492 (talk) 21:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I think I've addressed the above concerns. Orczar (talk) 22:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
What's the status on this review? The more to come was written several weeks ago and nothing has happened since. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 19:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
The review is still active, it's a big and complex article. Ajh1492 (talk) 12:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Passed! Ajh1492 (talk) 12:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Is there some reason why this and related articles use an en-dash instead of a hyphen, for "Polish–Lithuanian"? This seems to be an error. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 05:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC)