Talk:Partition Sejm

B-class

This article meets the B-class criteria. Confirmed for WP:POLAND by Orczar (talk) 20:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC).

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Partition Sejm/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 17:50, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Piotrus, I'll be glad to take this one. Initial comments in the next 1-5 days. Thanks as always for your amazing work on Polish history topics. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:50, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• File:Picture of Europe for July 1772.PNG needs a US PD tag. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:55, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
• "that Sejm was the site of Tadeusz Rejtan's famous gesture of protest." -- it's not really clear in the article body what this gesture of protest was, or that it was famous; do your sources elaborate on this? -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
• The article Polish anarchy links to a discussion of 20th-century anarchist movements in Poland, which I don't think is what's meant here. Is there another link that can be put here, or should this just be delinked? -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

More to follow soon! -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• Done, done and delinked. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• " Tadeusz Rejtan, Samuel Korsak and Stanisław Bohuszewicz, also Franciszek Jerzmanowski, Stanisław Kożuchowski, Rupert Dunin, Jan Tymowski, J. Zaremba, Michał Radoszewski, Ignacy Suchecki, Tadeusz Wołodkowicz" --it's unclear to me why this list has sublists in it-- that is, why it doesn't just list them all together instead of giving three and then saying "also". -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
• "notably" should probably be cut per WP:WTW. Now that Rejtan's protest is discussed on the next line anyway, I think it's clear that his protest was an impressive standout. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
• "immortalized" -- calling this painting "immortal" is a subtle value judgement, and a bit hyperbolic--what would you think of "depicted" or "portrayed"? -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  • It is a famous, acclaimed painting, so I think this word choice is justified. See dedicated article at Rejtan (painting) I wrote few days ago :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
• "Some were arrested and exiled" -- is the "some" here "senators"? Or critics of partition more generally? -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
• "Cardinal Laws" -- is it possible to give a phrase of context about what these are? -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
• "the starostwo territories, Crown lands would be awarded through an auction" -- I'm not sure I understand how this part fits grammatically into this sentence--can this be clarified?
• "It was nonetheless a significant improvement in the Commonwealth governance" -- this seems to border on opinion/interpretation. Could you say "According to historians X and Y"? Or clarify why it was an improvement in governance?
  • Hmmm, I'd if I had access to the sources, but I don't, so I am afraid I don't recall which, or if all, support this interpretation. One, at the very least, did. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
• It would be helpful to define "liberum veto" in a parenthetical or an explanatory footnote, since it's a recurring concept in the article and would be unfamiliar to non-Polish readers.
• "including from 1776 also the hetmans" -- I'm not clear what this means--the hetmans also supervised the magnates? Or the hetmans were also supervised by the council? You might break this off into a second sentence.
  • Uh, I am not sure what I meant, I removed this sentence. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
• "As such, its creation is universally seen" -- "universally" seems a little strong--is this the language one these sources use?
• The analysis of the allegorical picture in footnote A needs a source per WP:OR. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  • @Khazar2: Addressed all in those edits, but for the issues I specifically commented on above. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey, Piotrus, just wanted to ping you a reminder about this one. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:41, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah, Khazar2, sorry, I missed that. I'll get to this within the next 48h and ping you when I am done. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:06, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

That seems to take care of my comments above; starting checklist now, probably just about ready to pass. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:09, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. 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).	I'm concerned http://historia.pgi.pl/rozbiorowy.php may not be a reliable source--it looks self-published, but Google Translate is murky, so I may be misunderstanding. What do you think?
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	That's a pass--congrats!

Piotrus, I think this is just about ready to pass. I have one more concern noted above. Thanks again for all your work on this! I've learned quite a bit of Polish history from reading your contributions... -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

@User:Khazar2: Agreed, replaced it with more reliable refs: [1]. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:41, 16 October 2013 (UTC)