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

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

The article was removed by User:Marskell 12:54, 17 October 2008 [1].

Constitution of May 3, 1791

Review commentary

Notified: WP Law, Poland noticeboard, Wp Lithuania, WP Belarus, Logologist (talk · contribs) and Piotrus (talk · contribs)

Article mostly unsourced, violation of WP:WIAFA#1c. Prose seems OK, its the sourcing that appears to be the problem. D.M.N. (talk) 16:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

D.M.N. that's two nominations in two days; please see WP:FAR instructions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I was just browsing through some of the FA's, and couldn't help but notice what a state the article is in. Again, apologies for the multiple noms. D.M.N. (talk) 17:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the arguments found right here, content, in paragraphs or single statements, can indeed by stated without verifiable sources because readers are supposed to know about the history or every single subject and if they don't, they shouldn't be reading the article. I'm shocked at it too, but Wikipedia has truly never ceased to amaze me. I join the group of [citation needed] force, as I too feel that challenged content must be cited without question; at least if it wants to be a Featured Article. Domiy (talk) 10:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm struggling to see how that survived the FAR. Everything IMO should be cited without question. D.M.N. (talk) 13:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Everything? Are you serious? I invite you to read the guideline regarding inline citations: It doesn't say what you think it does. Nousernamesleft (talk) 02:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:NOR. D.M.N. (talk) 07:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for quipping a bluelink all-caps policy link to me without even a hint of an explanation as to how it's in the least relevant here. Nousernamesleft (talk) 19:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - This whole section in my view consistutes of Original Research. D.M.N. (talk) 21:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        In your view? Have you read each of the print sources at the bottom? Nousernamesleft (talk) 22:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        It's not OR, rather a collection of extremely trivial texbook info. Passages like "Many historians hold that a major cause...", "Not everyone in the Commonwealth agreed ..." are clearly below FA standard. "Drinking bouts and other assorted amusements" were common amidst upper classes of that period across all the Europe, this one is IMO redundant. NVO (talk) 08:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, some parts have citation needed tags and paragraphs are unsourced. There are a lot of parts which I'd prefer to have inline citations - some statements such as "The Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth was to be divested of over 30,000 square miles (78,000 km²) of territory, leaving her with 74,000 square miles (190,000 km²)" would need inline citations. D.M.N. (talk) 09:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

< Moved to talk page.> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we move the discussion of Palazzo Pitti elsewhere - it's confusing what criticism is of the Constitution, and what of PP article. Constitution needs refs, I will see if I can find time to find more.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per your suggestion, I've responded to Domiy on the talk page. Nousernamesleft (talk) 01:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is referencing (1c). Marskell (talk) 12:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remove. Agree with above comments by D.M.N. (talk · contribs), Domiy (talk · contribs), and NVO (talk · contribs). Of course willing to reassess if the article's condition is improved significantly. Cirt (talk) 23:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Too much original research and unreferenced statements. Citation needed tags are present in the article, meaning it is not verifiable and worthy of the FA criteria. Domiy (talk) 01:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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