Talk:Great Sejm

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (

   lists

   ):

   a couple of small spots of prose concerns

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to

   reliable sources): c (OR

   ):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Just one thing needing to be mentioned in the body of the text

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

   suitable captions

   ):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• Lead:
  • Stylistic issue, but we generally avoid abbreviations - so more formal encyclopedic writing would be "United States Constitution" - which is indeed the actual title of the article.
    • Fixed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instead of "The Constitution of May 3, 1791, was..." I suggest (but do not require) "The Polish Constitution was... " or "The 1791 Constitution was..." to avoid the awkward comma placement.
    • Fixed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There a reason you have the citation on the phrase "The Constitution introduced political equality between townspeople and nobility and placed the peasants under the protection of the government"? If it is because it doesn't appear in the body of the article, it should and needs to appear there, rather than just in the lead.
    • Fixed (artifact of content copying? - removed). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Double linking of "sejm" in the lead - once in the lead sentence and once in the second paragraph. Double check for other duplicate links - you've got Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and a bunch of them in the body of the article.
    • I wanted to run the "Highlight duplicate links" tool but it's seems broken for me, I asked for help here. In the meantime I removed a bunch I thought were not necessary, hopefully the I'll be able to use the tool and run it in within few days for the rest.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was able to run the tool - the dupe links should be fixed now. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 00:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really don't think it's necessary to link "bribed" ... most folks know what that word means.
    • Fixed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Origins:
  • Do you want to italicise "sejm" or not? You do in the lead, but in the body of the article you don't. Be consistent.
    • Fixed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "had
    gained great influence in certain Commonwealth circles
    during the reign" - ouch. That's a nasty easter egg link - can we eliminate the long phrase linkage somehow?
    • Sentence rewritten - I hope it is less eggish now. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Even before the First Partition, a Polish noble, Michał Wielhorski, an envoy of the Bar Confederation, had been sent to ask the French philosophes Gabriel Bonnot de Mably and Jean-Jacques Rousseau to offer suggestions on a new constitution for a new Poland." has FOUR citations - are they really necessary? That seems to imply that there is really something contentious that is not being stated ... why the need for more than two cites?
    • When I write articles, I often try to find refs for all claims. It is likely the case that this sentence is a synthesis of four sources (for example, only one may mention his first name, only one may mention he was an envoy, only one may mention Mably, and so on). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...when the First Partition was already underway." The only problem is... you don't ever state what the "First Partition" was... you easter egg linked it as "the first" instead... this is confusing to non-specialists.
    • Sentence rewritten - I hope it is less eggish now. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The listing of "notable works" is really a bit too much detail here - especially as none of these "notable works" have articles yet. Suggest "Notable works advocating the need to reform and presenting specific solutions were published in the Commonwealth itself by Polish-Lithuanian thinkers such as Stanisław Konarski, Józef Wybicki, Hugo Kołłątaj, and Stanisław Staszic in the years between 1761 and 1787."
    • They are all notable, and represents gaps in our coverage. Most if not all have articles on pl wiki. If the links were blue, would you still recommend removal? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, I probably would. As it is, right now we don't show how these works influenced the actions of the sejm... if one of them advocated positions taken by the sejm, we need to state that. It really is a lot of detail that's just there right now, it doesn't really tie in the titles to the actions of the sejm nor increase our knowledge of the sejm to have these titles floating out there. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'd prefer to keep them per
          WP:RED. I do agree the relevance is just so-so, but I think on a balance they are helpful. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
          ]
• 1789-90:
  • Something's off in "Many supporters of the reforms were gathered in the Patriotic Party, This group received support from all strata of Polish-Lithuanian society, from societal and political elites, including some magnates, through Piarist Enlightened Catholics, to the radical left." - the "This group" implies that it starts a new sentence but... it follows a comma. Also, the last bit is convoluted and hard to understand - can we get a bit of rewriting here to make it clearer?
    • Bah, comma to full stop and I hope this is now not confusing :) I did some other tweaking, let me know if it is better. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 23:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOS issue - "The Party's centrists, including Stanisław Małachowski, wished accommodation with the King." Generally, this would be "The party's centrists, including Stanisław Małachowski, wished accommodation with the king." as English usage (and the MOS) avoids unnecessary capitalization.
    • But not when a full name is used - I changed it to "Patriotic Party". I hope it's fine now. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • And ... to confuse you further... "While king Poniatowski also supported some reforms.." should be "While King Poniatowski also supported some reforms..." because here we're referring to a specific king, and thus its a proper noun phrase.
    • Fixed throughout article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Events in the world appeared to play into the reformers' hands." That easter egg link is just plain ugly and really doesn't tell us much. Remove the link is my suggestion.
    • I disagree here, it is a useful link to a social movement theory. As a sociologist, I think such links should be more common throughout the project. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Poland's neighbors were too occupied with wars to intervene forcibly in Poland, with Russia and Austria engaged in hostilities..." Shouldn't this be "The Commonwealth's neighbors were too occupied with wars to intervene forcibly in the Commonwealth, with Russia and Austria engaged in hostilities..."?
    • Commonwealth = Poland (in this context, synonyms). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...the Russians also found themselves fighting Sweden (the Russo-Swedish War)." does this really require FIVE citations?
    • Just that, wouldn't, but I am quite sure this is the case where each part of the sentence has one ref. There are three different wars mentioned, and the claim about how it affected Poland, most likely - four different refs, at least. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At first, Polish king Stanislaw August Poniatowski and some reformers..." As above, should be "At first, Polish King Stanislaw August Poniatowski and some reformers... " and you don't need to link his name again...
    • Fixed throughout article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "With
    Polish-Prussian alliance
    seeming to provide security..."
    • I don't share your concerns with this type of links, but sure, fixed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...King Stanisław August drew closer to leaders of the reform-minded Patriotic Party." Again, you've linked the king's name .. the third time in this section. Also, does it really need FIVE cites???
    • Three. I think there was a ref code error potentially erasing part of the article there, now fixed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...and the conservative faction gained enough new seats to threaten the reformers if they were to stay divided." awkward, can we reword?
    • Uh, I am sorry - it sounds good to me, I am afraid I cannot figure out what's wrong with it. If you had a suggestion...? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• 1791-92:
  • "As Małachowski begun to be seen as associated with the reformers, Sapieha was initially seen as a conservative..." awkward - suggest "As Małachowski was seen as associated with the reformers, Sapieha was initially seen as a conservative..."
    • Thanks, fixed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The double numbers of deputies exceeded the capacity of the parliament chambers..." awkward - suggest "The doubled number of deputies exceeded..."
    • Thanks, fixed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • More double linking - "constitution", constitutional monarchy, Constitution of 3 May...
    • Fixed throughout article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Aftermath:
  • Can we combine all these short one sentence paragraphs into one paragraph to avoid the choppy feel to the prose?
    • If you think it will look better - sure. Done. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Notes:
  • Inline external links are depreciated and shouldn't be used. What makes this a reliable source anyway? Rework it to make it a reference or an external link?
    • Some form of notes is not depreciated; the one used here is the one I learned a while ago. Added the reliable author info to the link to make it more reliable. I would replace it with a more reliable ref; alas, in all my readings and searching this is the only source that listed the number of deputies. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• References:
  • "CUP Archive" for current ref 4 - we spell out things like Cambridge University Press, since non-historians are not likely to know the "usual abbreviations".
    • Expanded. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes William Young's work reliable? iUniverse is a self-publishing company ...
    • Removed, not needed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously I can't judge the reliablity of the Polish sources, but other than the Young work, the English works look to be from reliable presses.

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, replied above. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good - passing now. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Great Sejm. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121013125715/http://free.art.pl/podkowa.magazyn/archiwum/my_litwa.htm to http://free.art.pl/podkowa.magazyn/archiwum/my_litwa.htm

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.

• 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) 16:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]