Talk:Second Partition of Poland

Second Partition of Poland 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
Date	Process	Result
July 26, 2013	Good article nominee	Listed
January 23, 2019	Good article reassessment	Kept
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on November 1, 2008. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that in the aftermath of the Second Partition of Poland* in 1793, the Kościuszko Uprising occurred in 1794?*
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on January 23, 2011, January 23, 2013, January 23, 2018, and January 23, 2019.
Current status: Good article

Poland High‑importance

	Poland portal 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lithuania High‑importance

	Lithuania portal 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column.
	Review comments: Renata (talk) 20:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Germany: Prussia Mid‑importance

	Germany portal 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Prussia, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.

Belarus

	Belarus portal 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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Russia: History Mid‑importance

	Russia portal 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.

Map

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]

Sievers

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]

GA Review

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)[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).	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 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.

This article has no good article shortcomings in my view, having regard to all the good article criteria. Indeed no links are broken. The article has easy potential to reach featured article status subject to those criteria.

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

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)[reply]

Second Partition of Poland

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Kept Consensus that the article meets the broadness criteria AIRcorn (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]