Jump to content

Talk:Polish–Prussian alliance

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rename

[edit]

I offer this article to rename in to Polish-Lithuanian and Prussian alliance Samogitia (talk) 12:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, the text of the treaty mentions only Republique de Pologne and Pologne, that is "Republic of Poland" and "Poland", respectively. By the end of 18th century the term "Commonwealth of Both Nations" went pretty much out of use and was completely outdated after the 4-year Sejm turned the country into a single entity. //Halibutt 00:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, we commonly abbreviate Polish-Lithuanian to Polish. It may not be the most correct, but it is the common practice in relevant English language texts. In fact, even our insistence on using the term Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth is going further then most, who are content to talk only of Poland. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 18:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For B-Class

[edit]

The only thing missing for a B-Class article is a citation at the end of the last paragraph in the "Aftermath" section. --MOLEY (talk) 23:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, ref added. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Expand lead for GA

[edit]

Hello, I took a look at this article to review it for GA but saw the lead needs to be expanded to better summarize the article's content before it can reasonably pass. Leave a message on my talk page if you'd like me to review after the lead has been expanded. Lemurbaby (talk) 17:06, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Lemurbaby: I missed this comment; I've expanded the lead now! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Polish–Prussian alliance/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 09:01, 6 October 2013 (UTC) Bags this one. Sorry to see its has been here so long. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:01, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment. passed

Comments

Review complete, on hold for seven days for the above to be addressed. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Peacemaker67: Fair enough, I've expanded the intro paragraph with sentences adopted from related GAs (May Constitution of Poland and First Partition of Poland): [1]. Is this sufficient know? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: Have c/e'd the new para. Just check my edits haven't changed any meaning or the accuracy? Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67. Ok, I tweaked it a little. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:23, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, done. Passing. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:46, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]