Talk:Sigismund III Vasa/GA2

GA Review

Passed. simongraham (talk) 13:09, 3 August 2021‎ (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 19:27, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This looks an interesting article which looks to be not that far short of a GA on an initial cursory inspection. I will start a full review shortly. simongraham (talk) 19:27, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The image File:Karl IX, 1550-1611, duke and king of Sweden. Eskilstuna stadsmuseum, Eskilstuna, Sweden.jpg is licensed under Creative Commons as "Own work". Please check and confirm that this is the correct license.

Fixed --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:02, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"In 1589, Sigismund's half-brother John, the future Duke of Östergötland, was born." Please add an appropriate verified source.

Fixed Merangs (talk) 11:54, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"he passed through the clutches of the Protestants". Please clarify as per MOS:IDIOM.

Fixed - removed the idiom. Merangs (talk) 11:54, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

" The Chancellor was initially supportive of Sigismund's candidacy due to his maternal lineage and connection to the royal house of Jagiellon." This seems a repeat of "His candidacy was secured by Queen Dowager Anna, Hetman Jan Zamoyski and several elite magnates who considered him a native candidate as a descendant of the Jagiellons." Please can you add the wikilink to the first instance and reword so that it is more encyclopaedic.

Fixed - removed repetition and restructured sentence, see the article for detail. Merangs (talk) 11:54, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"He established the office of regional governor (ståthållare) and appointed Klaus Fleming as the overlord of Finland, Charles' lifelong enemy." Please reword to clarify that it is Fleming who is the enemy rather than (I assume) Finland.

Fixed - restructured sentence. Merangs (talk) 11:54, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"In September 1597, he sailed for the Finnish coast and was able to take Åbo Castle in Turku". Consider rewording as the pronoun is unclear (the subject of the previous sentence was Finland).

Fixed - restructured sentence. Merangs (talk) 11:54, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"which systematically led to the demise of Sultan Osman II" Please clarify how this was systematic.

Fixed - reworded sentence to "hastened the downfall of Osman II" for more clarity. For sources see the section about Polish-Ottoman War in the body of the article. Merangs (talk) 11:54, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is the source for the children of Anne and Sigismund Spórna, Wierzbicki & Wygonik 2003, p. 519? Please place the reference appropriately.

Comment - Yes that is the correct source. It also lists the children. Merangs (talk) 11:54, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"However, it is unknown whether the relations between the two were physical." Please add a verified source.

Fixed - added two sources. Merangs (talk) 11:54, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Her sudden death was a blow to Sigismund who never recovered and died just nine months later." Please expand with a final paragraph about his end of life and legacy.

Comment - not sure what you meant here since the "death" and "legacy" sections are already included in the article. However, this did seem somewhat repetitive, hence I removed it.

Link Elizabeth

Fixed - link added where appropriate. Merangs (talk) 11:54, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please add OCLC using this template or another similar designation to bibliographical references which lack ISBN.

Fixed - All book sources/references should now either have ISBN, ISSN or OCLC. Merangs (talk) 11:54, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Although not a GA criteria, consider adding ALT tags to the images as per MOS:ALT.

Fixed - All files and images in the body of the article and the infobox now have a MOS:ALT caption. Merangs (talk) 11:54, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Merangs: This is a really good article and the edits are minor. Please ping me when you would like me to take another look. simongraham (talk) 13:21, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Simongraham: - Thank you so much for your appreciation. I attended to all of your comments and fixed what was necessary. Please review the article and let me known how it stands. Regards. Merangs (talk) 11:54, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is looking great. Time for a review. simongraham (talk) 13:06, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Review

The six good article criteria:

It is reasonable well written
the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct

it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.
It is factually accurate and verifiable
it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

all inline citations are from reliable sources;

it contains no original research;

it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.
It is broad in its coverage
it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

it stays ffocused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.
It has a neutral point of view
it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.
It is stable
it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

images are (relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Congratulations. This article meets the criteria to be a Good Article. simongraham (talk) 13:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Simongraham: - Thank you so much for this. I have one question, could you please assist me in selecting a passage from the text which seems interesting enough to nominate it for DYK? I'd like this to appear on Wikipedia's main page. Merangs (talk) 13:56, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Merangs: - How about a DYK around the 1620 assassination attempt? It could be an OTD too. simongraham (talk) 15:20, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.