Talk:Second Partition of Poland

Map

The map used as illustration only showed the cumulative effect of 1st and 2nd partition, so I took the liberty to replace it with the version from the Polish wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.241.13.115 (talk) 09:43, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Sievers

Seems to me the article underplays Russia's leadership and coercive role in the 1793 partition. No mention, for example, of the Russian ambassador Sievers Hmm... and no mention there (or here or anywhere) of the deportation of 7 members of the Polish patriotic party to Siberia and Russian confiscation of all their possessions. Thoughts? VєсrumЬа ►TALK 18:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

@User:Vecrumba: Sources I read seem to mostly agree that the 2nd Partition was Prussian invention, and I don't recall Sievers mentioned significantly. The latter issue is discussed in the Grodno Sejm (which does briefly mention Sievers). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: - Adam37 Talk 15:36, 23 July 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).	16 extremely relevant sources, all of which appear properly formatted.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No first-person or on-the-ground sources are used for contestable statements, amounting to no original research in my view.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Compared to an average article on the context of territorial treaties 1750-1850, Second Partition of Poland is very well developed, adopts a international context tone of words and covers a significant degree of the notable facts, although is rigidly narrow and non-tangential, which in the light of the closely-linked other articles is in my view the preferred way of things, however perhaps to suggest further improvements certain connections to wide-reaching, long-term period events could be roughly outlined. In particular, for Featured Article status, the European contemporary context such as the burgeoning Western European height of the Russian Empire (I am not sure of its date) or the contemporary nascent, industrially and militarily advancing, further division of Continental Europe into four Great powers: Russia, France, Prussia and the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Indeed the ultimate carving up of Poland can seen as a land-grab among others of the formidable four belligerents in the midst of a thirty year period which saw the transfer of the Austrian Netherlands to France, the annexation of Spain, and that of most of Italy.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No deviations
	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.

• This article has no good article shortcomings in my view, having regard to all the good article criteria. Indeed no links are broken. The article has easy potential to reach featured article status subject to those criteria.

Reviewer: Adam37 (talk · contribs) 15:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Does it mean you are passing it, or is there still something left? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Second Partition of Poland

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Kept Consensus that the article meets the broadness criteria AIRcorn (talk) 22:03, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't really seem as if this article can measure up to good article status. For example, the maps for the partition are too small to view properly, and the article just doesn't seem to provide good enough organization or provide concise, essential facts (see the Partition treaty section).

More detail please. Pictures seem big and can be easily resized. The treaty section seems quite comprehensive. What detail is missing? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:26, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

@Piotrus: Not that the article is not comprehensive, but it's not concise or organized enough. There's really stuff from the treaty in the background info, etc. Hdjensofjfnen (♪ Oh, can I get a connection? Alternatively, trout me.) 23:30, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I am really sorry but your criticism is still so generic that it is not actionable. It's like saying 'article is too short'. Well, I don't think so. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:04, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Note that the good article criteria do not require "comprehensiveness" like the featured article criteria do. All that's needed is "broad in its coverage", which is a pretty low bar and allows for short articles to become good articles in certain topic areas. Mz7 (talk) 05:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

• Keep Not seeing anything here where the article fails the criteria. The standards are not really that high and as someone not familiar with the topic it read quite well to me. AIRcorn (talk) 08:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
• Keep This is a short but very solid article. I'm familiar with some of the references and they are appropriately sourced. Hdjensofjfnen should consider adding to the article directly rather than trying to have it delisted.ErinRC (talk) 13:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)