Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Constitution of May 3, 1791/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 18:51, 14 July 2012 [1].

Constitution of May 3, 1791

Nominator(s): _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it has been a while since I've been in the FA corner of the wiki, but I think some of my recent articles are at the modern FA standards. Here's is an old FA (2005 vintage, delisted in 2008) that has been significantly reworked over the past year or so. The subject is one of the oldest constitutions in world's history. Let me know what you think :) PS. Oh, I almost forgot: I am taking part in that WikiCup thingy, if that matters for anything. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
- AmerEng or BritEng? I saw kilometres.. and.. another.. something like "prioritised"?
- "Court of first instance existed in each voivodeship..." Courts of first? – Ling.Nut (talk) 16:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can standardize the -ised to -ized, but I hope that does not mean we have to replace the kilometer with miles...? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - -ize plus -re = Oxford spelling. Should be fine so long as consistent. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Object I feel this article reads too much like a narrative. " a beacon in the struggle to restore Polish sovereignty" That is very emotional language. Secondly, the introduction paragraph lacks citations. 209.119.226.66 (talk) 16:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- May I suggest you register an account, and do some edits to learn Wikipedia MoS? Per WP:LEAD, introductions (leads) should not have any citations. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:06, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ive toned down the beacon statement, and will watch for other similar claims. Citations are not needed for the lead, provided they are backed up in the article body. Ceoil (talk) 13:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Piotrus. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments - still reading through and getting to grips. The article looks good in terms of scope and comprehensiveness, but the prose needs work in places; working through. Not looked at sources or done spot checks yet. Following are first cmts, though Ive answered my own questions in a few, putting here in case the nominator disagrees (which he is entitled to do):

~~At five paragraphs, the lead seem(ed) a bit disjointed. Ive made an attempt at merging into three paras, though you might have a more informed stab.~~
~~In the lead, I'd say what the constitution sought and its effect before the "the first constitution of its type in Europe" claims, which are really secondary.~~

The document claim to fame comes, IMHO, from its "second" claim before its "relatively liberal" ones. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still though, Im going to move it to the third para; its a bit loud and brash putting it up there before its content and explaining its signifance, "in context". Ceoil (talk) 14:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you think this is better, I have no strong preferences either way. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Why does "other scholars also refer to it as the world's second oldest constitution", in the lead, require five citations and a note~~
- Because it proved controversial, leading to edit wars and several talk discussion. The current version seem to be a table compromise, and the refs seem to help by showing that it is not a fringe or uncited opinion. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Why is Constitution capatilised throughout.~~

I think it should be capitalized only when referring to itself, not the generic Constitution. IIRC it was suggested to do so by the GA reviewer. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Ceoil (talk)

~~"Government Act" should prob be a blue link rather than in ""'s.~~

This term is only used for this document, as far as I know - so it is just an alt name. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will remove the ""'s so. Ceoil (talk) 14:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, go ahead. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil (talk) 13:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. Few other things:

"Features" as a section head isnt great, but not sure whats a better alt.
~~Such was, therefore, the structure of the government being established, in order to ensure that...~~: Very hard to parse.
- Better? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~...its actual influence was limited and it remaining in force for only a year - be more specific here~~
- What, exact number of days? Many sources say "about a year". It was officially annulled on 23 November 1793, but in practice is was mostly taken down in the aftermath of the lost War in the Defense of the Constitution, which ended in July 1792. I changed it to "little over a year", and I'd prefer to keep it ambiguous like that unless a better source is found. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
...mobilizing the country's citizens to strive for the political well-being of their country - this is vague and open to misinterpretation.
- It is vague per source; I am not sure how to tweak it; the point is it was influential not for how its laws were applied in practice, but for what they meant in theory. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The anti-communist demonstrations that took place around that day a year later and the competition the date created with the communist-endorsed May 1 Labor Day celebrations led in the Polish People's Republic to its rebranding (to Democratic Party Day) and removal from the list of national holidays by 1951 - couldn't parse this either. Ceoil (talk) 21:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Tried rewriting it here - better? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A number of the google books links are broken, at least for me [2] [3] [4]. Not a big deal. Ceoil (talk) 12:12, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see it. I think that's intended; what I mean is that some books are not available on google books for previews, in which case I just linked the book front page. Or google might have yanked a previously available book, and the page link no longer works, that does happen :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:18, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"King Stanisław August himself had been elected in 1764 with the support of his ex-mistress, Russian Tsarina Catherine the Great. Bribes were involved and the Russian army was deployed only a few miles from the election sejm, which met at Wola near Warsaw." - source?
- Ref added, plus some info. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Check for doubled periods caused by glitches in citation template
- Fixed, I hope.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Access dates aren't required for GBooks links, but if you really want to include them you should do so consistently
- I think they are present everywhere? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Formatting on FN11 and similar doesn't match other books
- Fixed, I hope. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ranges should consistently use endashes
- I don't understand dashes, but I am sure somebody has a script to fix that? :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FN33: formatting
- Fixed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FN60: as iUniverse is a self-publisher, what makes this a high-quality reliable source? What are the qualifications of the author?
- Does not seem it was needed anyway, so I've removed it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FN70, 82, 84, 93, 95, 104, 107, 111: formatting
- I tried to fix those, but the numbering changed in the meantime - let me know if I missed anything. PSB is not in Google Books, and I can't find the ISBN. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Be consistent in how you refer to the US-based Oxford University Press - you have a couple of different permutations
- Fixed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Foreign-language sources should be identified as such
- Fixed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FN80 seems to refer to a text listed as Further reading - should move to references
- Fixed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FN86: what type of source is this?
- I think it is a collected volume of conference or journal papers, but as I wasn't sure and couldn't access it anyway, I removed it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Format used in Further reading should be consistent and should match that used for like references.
- Fixed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria (talk) 01:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.