Talk:Second Partition of Poland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Seems to me the article underplays Russia's leadership and coercive role in the 1793 partition. No mention, for example, of the Russian ambassador Sievers Hmm... and no mention there (or here or anywhere) of the deportation of 7 members of the Polish patriotic party to Siberia and Russian confiscation of all their possessions. Thoughts? VєсrumЬа TALK 18:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

@User:Vecrumba: Sources I read seem to mostly agree that the 2nd Partition was Prussian invention, and I don't recall Sievers mentioned significantly. The latter issue is discussed in the Grodno Sejm (which does briefly mention Sievers). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Second Partition of Poland/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: - Adam37 Talk 15:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well written:
1a. the prose is clear and concise, and the 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. 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. 16 extremely relevant sources, all of which appear properly formatted.
2c. it contains no original research. No first-person or on-the-ground sources are used for contestable statements, amounting to no original research in my view.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Compared to an average article on the context of territorial treaties 1750-1850, Second Partition of Poland is very well developed, adopts a international context tone of words and covers a significant degree of the notable facts, although is rigidly narrow and non-tangential, which in the light of the closely-linked other articles is in my view the preferred way of things, however perhaps to suggest further improvements certain connections to wide-reaching, long-term period events could be roughly outlined.

In particular, for Featured Article status, the European contemporary context such as the burgeoning Western European height of the Russian Empire (I am not sure of its date) or the contemporary nascent, industrially and militarily advancing, further division of Continental Europe into four Great powers: Russia, France, Prussia and the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Indeed the ultimate carving up of Poland can seen as a land-grab among others of the formidable four belligerents in the midst of a thirty year period which saw the transfer of the Austrian Netherlands to France, the annexation of Spain, and that of most of Italy.

3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). No deviations
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 images:
6a. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content.
6b. images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment.

Reviewer: Adam37 (talk · contribs) 15:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Does it mean you are passing it, or is there still something left? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)