Jump to content

Talk:Juliusz Słowacki

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleJuliusz Słowacki has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic starJuliusz Słowacki is part of the Three Bards series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 17, 2011Good article nomineeListed
September 19, 2023Good topic candidatePromoted
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on February 17, 2011.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Polish poet Juliusz Słowacki is one of the Three Bards of Polish literature?
Current status: Good article

Untitled

[edit]

huch wrong wikipedia ;) .. please move it back!! ...Sicherlich 15:20, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

C-class

[edit]

With the expanded and properly referenced biography, I think this article classifies for the C-class. My intend is to keep expanding and improving this article. Expect a B-class review from WP:POLAND in the near future, and a GA nom afterward. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've promoted the article to B Class. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Juliusz Słowacki/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 15:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found

Linkrot: none found Jezhotwells (talk) 15:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria

[edit]
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    The prose passes muster, but would be improved by copy-editing throughout to make it flow better.
    The lead does not fully summarise the article, see WP:LEAD
    The Life section would benefit from breaking down into subsections, e.g. Early life, Literary career, Later years
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    References are in a variety of formats. Consistency in citing is required. Linking to book titles in Google books is not very helpful, unless there is a link to the exact page available. Full publisher, author and date details are missing from some cites. Some foreign language references are missing the language parameter.
  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, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Captioned and licensed.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    On hold for seven days for issues above to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I think this passes muster now. I am happy to list it. Congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 18:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article has already went through a prose improving copy-editing by Nihil Novi. I don't have any other editor to ask...
I've expanded lead, I hope it is sufficient now.
I added theree logical subsections to bio.
References should be consistent, I used [1] for most books; the few that didn't (from pl wiki mostly) should be now in the same format. Cite book doesn't seem to support page urls, only book urls, so this format seems to be the one possible. It should be consistent now for all the books, and all the elinks should be consistent as well. I added the missing language templates, let me know what else can be fixed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Juliusz Słowacki. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:16, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suspect typo

[edit]

from Wikipedia:Correct typos in one click genesic->genesis? context: ~~~ four periods: Wolter's circle (pseudoclassicism), Christian ethic, Towiański's ethic and genesic
genesic ethic.<ref>Włodzimierz Szturc (1997), ''O obrotach sfer romantycznych. Studia o ideach i wyobraźni'', Homini, By ~~~

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Juliusz_Słowacki&oldid=1212772855"