Jump to content

Talk:Great Sejm

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleGreat Sejm has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 2, 2012Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 13, 2006.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that the reforms of the Great Sejm in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, based on the French revolution, were annulled by the military intervention of the Russian Empire?
On this day...A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on May 29, 2023.

Great Sejm

[edit]

Would it make sense to retitle this article, "Sejm Wielki," to "Great Sejm"? That is what the Polish name means, and no other sejm has been called that.

As noted above, the Great Sejm was mentioned in the April 12, 2006, Main Page "Did you know" section — as "Great Sejm". logologist|Talk 06:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support the move (this is en-wiki), and get rid of "".--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from B-class review

[edit]

In the "1791-1792" section, try to clarify the phrase "Russian adherents".

Also, the following sentence says "the Sejm met with only 182 members present, about a third of its 'dual' number". Yet the first sentence of the preceding section ("1789-1790") says there were 181 deputies, joined by another 171. So 182 members meeting should be about half, not a third, of its dual number.

Otherwise, a fine article. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 22:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 18:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be reviewing this article shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    a couple of small spots of prose concerns
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Just one thing needing to be mentioned in the body of the text
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, replied above. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 23:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good - passing now. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Great Sejm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]