Open main menu

Talk:1957 Polish legislative election

1957 Polish legislative election has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 9, 2007Good article nomineeListed
June 5, 2009Good article reassessmentDelisted
June 3, 2011Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 11, 2007.
Current status: Good article


Contents

Sources questionEdit

I would like a clarification on the source" "Bartłomiej Kozłowski, Wybory styczniowe do Sejmu 1957". What are the scholarly credentials of the source were this article is published. How academic is this publication. If it's not, it may or may not be OK depending on the credentials of the author. What are those? it is an important source since more than a half of the inline refs point to it. So, we better have it reliable. --Irpen 02:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

He is a journalist. The article was published on non-profit educational polska.pl/poland.pl portal (see this), an initative of Naukowa i Akademicka Sieć Komputerowa. As such it seems quite reliable - on the level of popular science magazines - and cerainly passess both WP:V and WP:RS.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  04:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

So, the source authored by an author with no academic credentials published in some internet portal is used for about a half of the inline refs. Please try to reference the article to something more reliable. --Irpen 04:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Please try to read our policies. The sources, unlike your arguments, are quite reliable.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  04:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

What policy exactly considers material published in some internet portal by an author with no credentials of any kind as reliable? --Irpen 05:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:V, WP:RS, WP:ATT. Of course, it would help if you'd read my previous reply where I explain how the author and the portal are reliable. As it appears you intend to use your favourite tactic of ignoring key points others write and repeat your initial points, don't expect me to repeat myself. again-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  05:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:V, WP:RS and WP:ATT does not elaborate at what sources are considered reliable. But I am ready to accept any source, no matter where it is published, if it is authored by an established scholar. --Irpen 05:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunatly the above policies have less strict criteria. Consider joining Citizendium, which - for better or worse - has higher critiera of what is reliable than we. And no, our policies do elaborate on what is reliable and not (suprising, when you consider the name Wikipedia:Reliable sources, don't you think so?). As I have quoted you relevant policies ad nausueam in the past years I will not do so again.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  05:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:RS does not list what sources are reliable. Go check yourself. We have to use some common sense. As for your asking your opponents to leave the project, this is a step forward, I must say, from attempting to achieve the same by endless complaints aimed at having them sanctioned. --Irpen 05:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

And, while we do not know the academic creditentials of the person who wrote the article, the people who commissioned the author to compose the article seems credible to me. We take a lot less information and use it as sources. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree that if the article comes from a publisher with the scholarly reputation, the individual author's reputation becomes less of a concern. This source, however, is some internet portal. I do not object to internet portals on principle, but one of the two things has to be scholarly, either the author or the source. --Irpen 05:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
And you will keep ignoring my post explaining that a NASK-run portal is considered highly credible, much more than some news portal, right?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  05:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

NASK is merely a NIC. In what way does it being associated with the domain name registry makes a site scholarly? --Irpen 05:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Read the sentence before 'It is also the national registry of the .pl domain'. Hint: the word 'also' means it is something else. Unfortunatly, yes, 99% of the article is in geek mode and concentrates on NIC aspect. But, long story short, NASK is also a University of Warsaw-affiliated research and development organization. Read homepage.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  06:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, the claimed research that they do is in the field of computers and networks and the claimed association with the Warsawa University is with the Faculty of Electronics and Information Technology. In what way does this all establish an authority in the history of the post-war Poland? --Irpen 06:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

From speaking with Piotrus, the journalist does have a website at [1] where we can ask what his C.V. is. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
In the same way that University of Toronto Press (for example) estabilishes academic credibility for whatever they publish in fields other than printing presses or Toronto local information. It is an online academic publisher. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  06:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Our policies clearly say that publications from the university presses and publishing houses reputable known for their academic reputation, such as Routledge or Pergamon, are acceptable by default. Portals are not comparable to such sources and the articles need to be judged case by case. Is the portal known for scholarly publications in history? Of not, does the author have some otherwise established credentials in the field. If both answers are negative, the source is not reliable. --Irpen 06:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Please cite specific policies. And yes, it is known for publications of educational articles on Polish history.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  04:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, wasn't it you who heavily cited popular articles from "Zerkalo Nedeli" magazine and claimed that it was a reliable source ? Double standards again ? --Lysytalk 17:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I have explained to Piotrus ad naseum that the Zerkalo Nedeli article in question is written by an othewise established scholar, a professor of history from Kiev university. If the portal article is also written by someone with established academic credentials, I withrdraw my objections. As of now, both the source and the author are unscholarly which makes the particular ref dubious. --Irpen 17:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
It is your double standards that are dubious, Irpen. For the last time, this article fullfills WP:RS/WP:V/WP:ATT. EOT.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus, your mere repetition does not make your point stronger. Please cite the policy from which you derive that the article whose author has no scholarly credentials published at the internet portal with no reputation to be a scholarly source of history either is an acceptable source. Specific policy and quote please. Until then, your mere repetition of things does not "E" any "T". --Irpen 18:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, a site created by a major Polish university (Warsaw Uni) and research centers (NASK) and recommended by, for example, Polish government, Library of Congress or The Economist is reliable per WP:RS/WP:ATT - it is a 'mainstream website' and 'published by university' (well, by an organization closely affiliated with one and reliable by its own right) - or just look at that list - it's a partner of The Head Office of the State Archives, Warsaw University Library, Polish Constitutional Tribunal, Polish National Commission for UNESCO and other notable and quite reliable organizations... Nowhere we have a policy requiring authors of cited publications to hold a PhD. Please cite a policy that would put the reliability of that source in doubt or stop this pointless argument.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

In any caseEdit

I have downloaded and am now reading JSTOR articles (currently in further reading). They seem to confirm all of the article; I'll add them as inline citations to accompany current - indeed, less academic - publications. However, let me repeat, all the numbers and facts are confirmed.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI, JSTOR does not publish articles. It only indexes and archives those that are published elsewhere. But if you replace the references to the dubious source with those to the peer-reviewed journals covered by JSTOR, I will withdraw my objections as far as the sources are concerned. --Irpen 20:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I know what JSTOR is. And I have explained ad nauseum above that the current references are reliable. But you have motivated me to expand this article to at least a GA status, and I fill confident with the new refs I can do it. Then I would really like to work on the 1947 election, it's quite a fascinating topic...-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

GA passEdit

 
Here is the result.

The article has RS - since the Midwest Journal of Political Science even has some stuff on Vietnam elections which I use....I have copyedited the article and it is NPOV and tells us the necessary information about the background, rules and results of the election. It is free of OR, has a statistical graphic and gives all the core details one would expect of an election. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

GA ReassessmentEdit

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Polish legislative election, 1957/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

I am doing the GA Reassessment on this article as part of the GA Sweeps project.

I have some concerns about this article.

  • Link [4] in the references section is dead.
  • In the Election Results section there is the statement that there were significant politcal changes as a result of the election. These changes are not spelled out. In fact in the lead it says that the election went predictably for the parties in power. From a comprehensive stand point this needs to be expanded. The article is fairly short for a GA, is there any further information that can be added? Were there referendums that were voted on as well or was it purely a candidate election? What were the criteria for trimming down the 60,000 candidates? What is meant by "crossing out" the candidates? How could they vote against them since only communist candidates were on the ballot?

Considering the work that needs to be done on this article I feel that it does not meet the GA Criteria and I will delist at this time. If the article can be improved then please renominate at WP:GAC. H1nkles (talk) 16:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

It took me a while to get back to this article. So yes, link 4 was dead. I found a replacement, but it seems to be having issues too (I can access it through Google's cache, but not directly), neither of them is in the Internet Archive. I hope it will stabilize itself. You misread the part about the significant changes - they were referring to the background, not aftermath. I've clarified that. I will also see if I can expand the article further. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

With the new aftermath section, I think the article is ready for a new review. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

GA ReviewEdit

This review is transcluded from Talk:Polish legislative election, 1957/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ajh1492 (talk) 23:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

{{subst:#if:This article is in decent shape, but it needs some work before it becomes a Good Article.|


This article is in decent shape, but it needs some work before it becomes a Good Article.|}}

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:  
    {{subst:#if:see below|see below|}}
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:  
    {{subst:#if:|{{{1bcom}}}|}}
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:  
    {{subst:#if:|{{{2acom}}}|}}
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:  
    {{subst:#if:|{{{2bcom}}}|}}
    C. It contains no original research:  
    {{subst:#if:|{{{2ccom}}}|}}
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:  
    {{subst:#if:|{{{2dcom}}}|}}
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:  
    {{subst:#if:|{{{3acom}}}|}}
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):  
    {{subst:#if:|{{{3bcom}}}|}}
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:  
    {{subst:#if:|{{{4com}}}|}}
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:  
    {{subst:#if:|{{{5com}}}|}}
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:  
    {{subst:#if:|{{{6acom}}}|}}
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:  
    {{subst:#if:|{{{6bcom}}}|}}
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:  
    {{subst:#if:Passed|Passed|}}


Review commentsEdit

It's a first reading, I haven't finished yet. Ajh1492 (talk) 23:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I did some more updates, you might want to check to make sure I quoted the right percentages and sjem size in the infobox. Ajh1492 (talk) 23:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you comfortable with the semi-colon usage in two sentences in the Lede? Ajh1492 (talk) 00:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Lede
Lede should contain summary info from Aftermath
Consider use of Template:Infobox election
Might want to look at the 1961 elections article to see what needs to go into the infobox
  • Background
significant political changes in the government (Władysław Gomułka's ascension to power) they were delayed until early 1957 - consider rewording to eliminate parentheses, it's a little clunky
Among various promises ... promised free elections - how about Among the various promises made by First Secretary Gomułka, during the Polish October peaceful revolution, to the restless Polish population was that of free elections.
secret police (Służba Bezpieczeństwa) - reword to secret police (Polish: Służba Bezpieczeństwa) - check article for consistent use of lang-pl template
candidates from the main communist party (Polish United Workers' Party - PZPR) and one of the lesser communist parties (United People's Party - ZSL).[6] - you've already defined PZPR and ZSL, you can use the acronyms in the rest of the article consistently.
Soviet intervention, in case of G loss were also repeated by Radio Free Europe, - what is a "G loss"
  • Election results
Its Senior marshal (Polish title for speaker) - is the parenthetical expression necessary, you provided the link just prior to it
Consider putting the results in a table and have the pie chart as a cell in the resultant table - would be consistent with Wikipedia:Embedded_list
Check for correct number of spaces after punctuation
  • References
Remove redlink in first reference
Google books link is blank on first reference
Replace bad links on reference #5
Consider moving details on reference #6 from Further Reading (Paweł Machcewicz, Kampania wyborcza i wybory do Sejmu 20 stycznia 1957 roku)


I think I fixed most issues. Gbooks links are a bit unstable; the page is there but we cannot view it. It may work one day, again. Ref 5 was replaced, as it is dead and not archived. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

What is your source for 456 and 457 (+1) in this? Front of National Unity needs improvement, but if it was PZPR, ZSL and SD, then the FJN gains should not include the "independents". --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The election articles on either side of 1957. Put in whatever number you have a reliable source for. Ajh1492 (talk) 14:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I am just doing that :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
And done with various fixes and expansions to this and other commie elections articles, for now at least. I will try to get the 1989 one DYKed in a near future, I think :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Return to "1957 Polish legislative election" page.