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.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland articles
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.LithuaniaWikipedia:WikiProject LithuaniaTemplate:WikiProject LithuaniaLithuania articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany 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.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belarus, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belarus 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.BelarusWikipedia:WikiProject BelarusTemplate:WikiProject BelarusBelarus articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
The map used as illustration only showed the cumulative effect of 1st and 2nd partition, so I took the liberty to replace it with the version from the Polish wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.241.13.115 (talk) 09:43, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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).
16 extremely relevant sources, all of which appear properly formatted.
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 media such as images, video, or audio:
Result: Kept Consensus that the article meets the broadness criteriaAIRcorn(talk) 22:03, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't really seem as if this article can measure up to good article status. For example, the maps for the partition are too small to view properly, and the article just doesn't seem to provide good enough organization or provide concise, essential facts (see the Partition treaty section).
More detail please. Pictures seem big and can be easily resized. The treaty section seems quite comprehensive. What detail is missing? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:26, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: Not that the article is not comprehensive, but it's not concise or organized enough. There's really stuff from the treaty in the background info, etc. Hdjensofjfnen (♪ Oh, can I get a connection? Alternatively, trout me.) 23:30, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am really sorry but your criticism is still so generic that it is not actionable. It's like saying 'article is too short'. Well, I don't think so. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:04, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the good article criteria do not require "comprehensiveness" like the featured article criteria do. All that's needed is "broad in its coverage", which is a pretty low bar and allows for short articles to become good articles in certain topic areas. Mz7 (talk) 05:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not seeing anything here where the article fails the criteria. The standards are not really that high and as someone not familiar with the topic it read quite well to me. AIRcorn(talk) 08:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a short but very solid article. I'm familiar with some of the references and they are appropriately sourced. Hdjensofjfnen should consider adding to the article directly rather than trying to have it delisted.ErinRC (talk) 13:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
.svg){kind=small}
