This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lithuania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lithuania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
The article is too short, and is incomplete, and therefore does not meet the completeness criterion at WP:WIAGA. Not only is the lead section too short, and doesn't adequately summarize the article (see WP:LEAD for tips on improving this section), but its main sections and content is very short as well. The article also doesn't follow the manual of style too well. It would help to review that, in particular the section regarding section headers (WP:MSH). A photo or photo(s) could also help the article as well. Dr. Cash (talk) 18:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I will expand the lead and fix the headings, but your other comments hold no water. The main body of the article is very comprehensive - point me to other sources that could be used to expand it, please. I believe that this article is one of the most comprehensive descriptions of the Sejm of 1632, in English or Polish. As for the photo... 17th century? You are not serious, are you? :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of June 25, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:
1. Well written?: Fail
There are a number of grammatical errors present throughout the article, and it requires a good copyedit. Specific instances include:
the non-Catholics led by marshal Radziwiłł and Bogusław Leszczyński) demanded increased rights of the non-Catholics - repetition of non-catholics, needs to be re-written, also marshal should be capitalized.
his candidature was never officially put forth - 'put forward
His apparent religiously tolerant attitude - needs to be reworded
On the international scene - Needs to be reworded
papal nuncio - capitlization
count - needs to be capitalized
although the envoy of Gustavus (Steno Belke) argued that Władysław should renounce his claim to the Swedish throne (Władysław refused). - Rewrite to avoid the brackets
The Sejm of 1632, taking place at Wola (as was traditional) - Same as above
Regarding copyedit, I am not a native English speaker but I have requested copyedit help from some users I know specialize in this area.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
2. Factually accurate?: Fail
A number of factual errors present in the article, including:
Lead requires expansion, and does not adequately explain the article in summation
Jan Kazimierz was further disadvantaged as he was the younger son, and king Zygmunt III Waza, father of Władysław and Zygmunt, before his death (on April 30) blessed Władysław and chose him as his successor - Needs to be split into two sentences, with an explanation as why being the younger son was a disadvantage, and what advantage the King's blessing had.
he indecisiveness of the Catholic faction - How were they indecisive?
Similarly, Władysław breaking custom and coming to Warsaw during the election generated only a little disapproval. - Why did this break custom? What custom? Why did it generate little disapproval?
of the Swedish Vasas - what is the Vasas - a governing body?
although the envoy of Gustavus (Steno Belke) argued that Władysław should renounce his claim to the Swedish throne (Władysław refused). - what was their argument?
You aso fail to explain why and how al of these nations were able to field candidates in this election, which has already confused me.
The religious freedoms from the Warsaw Confederation were reaffirmed, and a new tax was passed, kwarta, which sent 40% of starostwo's income to the Royal Treasury- why is the later important, and what is a kwarta? A short explanation would be in order.
In the pacta conventa, Władysław promised to fund a military school and equipment, find a way to fund a naval fleet, maintain current alliances, not to raise armies, give offices or military ranks to foreigners, negotiate peace treaties or declare war without Sejm's approval, not to take a wife without the Senate's approval, convince his brothers to take an oath to the Commonwealth, and transfer the profits from the Royal Mint to the Royal (not private) Treasury. - Needs to be broekn down with proper punctuation and also rewritten to avoid the brackets.
He was crowned on February 5, 1633 (the ceremony continued over the next day). - rewrite to remove brackets.
References - these should not be combined as they are - page numbers and abbreviated title should be in a Notes section, the rest of the information in the References Section.
3. Broad in coverage?: Fail
Does not explain what an election sejm actually is. Even the wikilink fails to do so, and this article should at least provide an overview of what a sejm actually was.
Fails to mention why the issue of catholicism was such a contentious issue - thus, the Prelude needs an expansion and revamp to explain this to the reader.
Fails to explain in detail many of the wikilinked names and organizations and titles, which will confuse the general reader.
4. Neutral point of view?: Pass
No problems here
5. Article stability? Pass
No editwars, so a pass
6. Images?: Pass
Not required, but at the very least a picture of Władysław IV Vasa would be good for the article.
Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. Skinny87 (talk) 17:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I have failed this article, as eight days have passed and litle work has been done. Please renom at a later time. Skinny87 (talk) 15:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)