Open main menu

GA ReviewEdit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 18:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this article shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and 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 fair use rationales):   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  
  7. Overall:
  • 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.
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • Really don't think it's necessary to link "bribed" ... most folks know what that word means.
  • 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.
    • "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?
    • "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)
    • "...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.
    • 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)
        • 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)
  • 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?
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • "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.
    • "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..."?
    • "...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)
    • "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...
    • "With the new alliance between the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth and Prussia seeming to provide security..." another ugly easter egg link ... suggest "With the new Polish-Prussian alliance seeming to provide security..."
    • "...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???
    • "...and the conservative faction gained enough new seats to threaten the reformers if they were to stay divided." awkward, can we reword?
  • 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..."
    • "The double numbers of deputies exceeded the capacity of the parliament chambers..." awkward - suggest "The doubled number of deputies exceeded..."
    • More double linking - "constitution", constitutional monarchy, Constitution of 3 May...
  • Aftermath:
  • 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)
  • 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".
    • What makes William Young's work reliable? iUniverse is a self-publishing company ...
    • 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)
Thanks, replied above. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 23:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Looks good - passing now. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Return to "Great Sejm/GA1" page.