This article is within the scope of WikiProject Numismatics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
numismatics and
currencies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NumismaticsWikipedia:WikiProject NumismaticsTemplate:WikiProject Numismaticsnumismatic articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Poland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland articles
10 złotych note was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the
good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be
renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
The image
File:10zl a.jpg is used in this article under a claim of
fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the
requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an
explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
That there is a
non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.
... the article says "In 1950, new notes, which were dated 1948, were introduced for 2, 5, 10, 20, 50, 100 and 500 złotych, but 1000 złotych notes were added in 1962.[2] 200 and 2000 złotych notes were added in 1976 and 1977, followed by 5000 złotych notes in 1982" and it has a picture of the ten zloty note with
Jozef Bem on it (that should be added and linked). But I'm pretty sure the Bem note was issued in the 1980's (probably 1982), not in 1950 as the article suggests.
The only (minor) issue I see with this article is the Infobox: it shouldn't have blanks. Either fill in the Designer and Design date fields or remove the pipe symbols (|) from the code. Otherwise good work! —
Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (
talk)
12:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Sorry, just noticed that in the article's body You spell the captions from the notes in ALL CAPS, while on the notes they are spelled in Small Caps. I think that should be fixed. —
Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (
talk)
12:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Hello Dmitrij D. Czarkoff!
The first point has its own issues, unfortunately.
I'm busy fixing the Infobox. At least it hides the unused strings now. As far as I can see, the Small Caps are only used in the name of the bank. Template {{smallcaps}} should help with this issue. —
Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (
talk)
21:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Ok, I already stated this above but let me repeat. In additional to some other problems (about which I emailed Plarem and got no response so far), the article uses Wikipedia as a source and contains some inaccuracies. It's not up to GA standard.
VolunteerMarek17:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Where is Wikipedia used as a source? You are right, kiwix fork is a red flag, and this has been raised on talk few days ago, and ignored by the nominator and the reviewer. On a quick glance, lead is poorly formatted (seems too short, and too many paragraphs), there are problem with
WP:BTW (for example, word
denar is never ilinked, nor is
Bank Polski,
grosz is incorrectly redlinked to
groszy, there is a typo in "Bank Kassowy", the use of capital letters seems problematic (I am pretty sure MOS discoruages them), there is inconsistent use of Polish diacritics ("dziesięć" vs "DZIESIEC"). Fair use images probably need additional rationale. I am sorry, Czarkoff, but if this is how you review articles, I am afraid I have to take this to
WP:GAN and ask for a re-review of all of them. PS. This was a quick review, prose was not reviewed, and only few sample paras were checked for style issues. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
talk to me17:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)reply
I have to agree with all the points listed above. But I do not take full responsibility for all of them. I take full responsibility for:
"You are right, kiwix fork is a red flag, and this has been raised on talk few days ago, and ignored by the nominator and the reviewer." I have added the kiwix ref because I could find nothing else, will be removed in a short space of time.
"On a quick glance, lead is poorly formatted (seems too short, and too many paragraphs)"; I am not a good lead writer.
"there is inconsistent use of Polish diacritics ("dziesięć" vs "DZIESIEC")."; That was just not noticed, therefore not fixed.
"Fair use images probably need additional rationale." Those are my first non-free pictures uploaded to Wikipedia, I was not fully sure how to write a fair-use rationale.
"the use of capital letters seems problematic (I am pretty sure MOS discoruages them)".
But, on the other hand I do not take responsibility for:
Feel free to re-review this article. The only question I have is about the
WP:WIKICUP points. Do I get them now, or, if it is reassessed, after the second assessment (/GA2)?
Volunteer Marek, in your email to me, you say:
"Problem w tym ze doslowne tlumaczenie copyrighted text jest tez copyrighted"
(English): The problem is that an excellent translation of copyrighted text is also copyrighted.
And in
WP:COPYVIO, there is not a word about translated work. Please explain.
Regarding kiwix,
[2]. Moving on, if you are the nominator, it assumes you take upon yourself to fix the works by others. So youll have to address all issues, including those introduced by others. Regarding Wikicup, ask the judges. It also depends on whether this so-far still succesful nom is failed, and re-reviewed. I wouldn't worry about Wikicup, there are months left in the 1st round, and last time, a single DYK was enough to move to the second round anyway. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
talk to me19:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)reply
I also noticed that this must be a rushed review, as after most of my reviews, I get a bowl of strawberries, or a barnstar for my good work. Now I got nothing. :( – Plarem(
Usertalkcontribs)18:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)reply
You're right that there's no mention of verbatim translations in
WP:COPYVIO, which is a problem with that page - I brought the issue up recently here
[3]. It's basically a common error and many people are not aware of the fact that stuff from other languages needs to be translated AND paraphrased.
Specifically here, the "Design" section is a verbatim translation of the source (even the same phrases are left in all caps)
[4] and needs to be rewritten/paraphrased.
The other thing that needs to be corrected is the issue date for the "2, 5, 10, 20" notes in the "Third złoty banknotes" section. The 50, 100, and 500 probably were in fact issued in 1948 - I don't know off the top of my head, but I'm dead sure that the 10 and 20 came out in early 80's because I remember it. This is the section which is using kiwix/wikipedia as a source and it is incorrect. In fact, it's a pretty good example of why Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a source.
Actually with the ten zloty note, I think it got introduced in 1950, retired in 1960 (replaced by a coin with Mickiewicz on it) and then a new one was issued in 1982 or so.
VolunteerMarek18:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)reply
It's been two days and the copyvio issues have not been addressed. I've removed the offending section. The article should be delisted from GA.
VolunteerMarek18:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Given that you made the change while the discussion at talk:Złoty was ongoing and clearly controversial, I'm afraid I have difficulty understanding your logic.