Everything specific that has been pointed out in the last (August 2012) FAC has been fixed, and the article has received several other fixes since then. Bring it on. PS. Yadda yadda WPCUP participant. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Piotrus. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Comment from MasterOfHisOwnDomain: Shouldn't the article start "… was a document designed to …" (i.e., reverse the order of the first and second sentences) so that we know what it is before we know when it was drafted. If not de rigeur then that would be my preference. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 19:17, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
I thought about this, but moving this would actually require complex changes, at least in my vision, and those few words don't seem to be out of place - it's a bit like date of birth in biographies. I have no problem if you'd like to try to rewrite the lead, of course. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:04, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
I disagree - I think the only important date is the May 3, 1791, or maybe also the date it was annulled. I find the very short lifespan more important than the time it was drafted. How about this:
The Constitution of May 3, 1791 (Polish:...) was a "Government Act" (Ustawa rządowa) adopted by the Great Sejm of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, and lasted just eighteen months until it was annulled by the Grodno Sejm on November 23, 1793. It was designed... and culminating with this legislation adopted by the Great Sejm.
Also, from May 1791 to November 1793 is eighteen months, not fourteen. -- Ypnypn (talk) 00:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Math fixed. Regarding the lead, I'd be fine with that version too, and you are welcome to change the article accordingly. Personally I don't see a significant difference, so I won't change it myself, however. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
So it does. But link rot to sources is not a problem... or is it?
Would be helpful to be able to verify source information.
It would, but link rot is hard to deal with. Fortunately, the source page is in the archive.org:  but archive.org is terrible with pictures, and I cannot get any graphics to load. The only mirror I see cites Wikimedia Commons :)  --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Drive-by comment I've just cited this article as an example of why infoboxes are not always a good idea. It makes the picture and its good long caption unreadably small, and contains no very helpful information that can't be in the first lines. Suggest dropping. Also the MOS says images should not usually be fixed smaller than the default 220px, which many of these are, and for no good reason, as there is room in most parts of the article. Johnbod (talk) 17:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Delegate's closing comment Sadly this nomination has stalled and after six weeks here, I have decided to archive it. In my view the article is too detailed and reads more like a treatise than an encyclopedia article. Some radical cuts might be in order and efforts to break up large blocks of text, which make reading the article a bit of a chore. 18:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)