Talk:Hetmans' Party

B-class review

There are a few problems I see with this article:

1. The hatnote seems unnecessary unless there's another article to link to (i.e., a blue link).
2. The phrase Golden Freedoms or Golden Liberties is used (and Wikilinked) in each of the four sections, but what they were is never said.
3. A little more context about Russia and its influence on Poland might be helpful to the reader. In the Background section, the Patriotic Party was formed to assure independence from Russia, but the nature of the threat isn't explained clearly.
4. In the context of this article, perhaps the name "War in Defense of the Constitution" isn't the best name?

If these issues are addressed, I can continue my B-class review. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

1. Unless it is really against MoS, I'd keep the hatnote per WP:RED. The Hetman Party (1764-1764) was also notable, and an article should be created on it.
2. The first para mentions they were the "their [magnates] privileged status". Isn't this enough? Perhaps you could add a little, what may be needed is perhaps not apparent for me, since I am so familiar with the subject.
3. Expanded a little on the Russian importance.
4. Well, the constitution is mentioned, so I am not sure why the name would be bad? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 00:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

1. According to WP:Hatnote#Non-existent articles, there shouldn't be a hatnote for an article that doesn't exist. But that's "just a guideline", and WP:IAR, so I'm not going to make a fuss about it.
2. Oops. Missed that.
3. Thanks.
4. Okay.

Promoted. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I removed the hatnote before checking the talk page - it just struck me as clutter. Also wouldn't it be "Hetman Party (1764)"?Volunteer Marek 06:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)