Talk:Ambassadors and envoys from Russia to Poland (1763–1794)

Old talk
Wow, I have only just skimmed through the article but it seems really great to me! It could easily be a strong GA if not FA candidate! (which makes me a bit sad, because somehow positive aspects of our country's history and in general our country, as well as contemporary Poland topics do not get the same attention) My concerns would be: That said, I wish I have created even one article like that during my tenure here! Bravada, talk - 01:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * some inline citations are not properly done - why won't you use the tags and (and related) templates?
 * the list at the bottom is pretty redundant - if anything, I would incorporate it into a nice table that would also serve as a TOC :D
 * Maybe the negative aspects are more interesting, just as action films :) But we have good articles on subjects like Constitution of 3rd May or History of Solidarity (contemporary, see?), too. As for citatons: for DYK-level I don't always use refs (too time consuming), and cite book template is always something I found too editor unfriendly to we worth the effort. Hopefully we will get citation pop up wysiwig thingy shown on Wikimania soon :) The list is somewhat redundant, yes, a table version would be nice, but not as an alternative ToC, I think.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 09:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, given the section headings, the TOC already repeats most of the information contained in the list, so a separate table would be as redundant as the list is now. And I like all kinds of extra touches in the articles that make them look more "professional" :D The cite book template is not THAT hard to use, and if the citations would be raised as a reason for objection in GAN or FAC, I would find it valid.
 * As concerns the topics, "contemporary" for me means "post-1989", and the history of the Solidarity is a largely pre-1989 topic (and the post-1989 part is hardly uplifting...) What I mean is that e.g. the Balcerowicz's Plan article is nowhere near as detailed and well-done as this one. Not to mention the article on Warsaw etc. The History of Poland (1989–present) article hardly mentions social and economic changes that took place since 1989. Reading WP only one can get the impression that Poland was constantly repressed, later became a poor communist country and later Wałęsa took down communism (to simplify that a bit) and now we have a government led by twins and that's all.
 * I still live in the same place I did in 1989 and if I could take a picture of the view out of my window then and now, the change would be absolutely striking and very positive. Everytime I look through the window I thank God it's 2006 and not 1989 (not quite when I turn on the TV, but that's another thing). I somehow can't see that reflected in WP. But that's just my afterthought after a very short night :D Bravada, talk - 10:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Feel free to remove or change the list, I translated it from pl wiki without much thought. 2) As for cite stuff - I agree it would be done for GA/FAC, but it is not (yet) requirement for DYK, so I sometmes cut corners :) On a sidenote, this is not yet comprehensive enough for DYK, I failed to find much information on some ambassadors, who are still barely stub-sections, and considering the article's title and the rather extensive section on Sejm Niemy I wonder if it should not be split/renamed/etc. 3) I agree that post-1989 is one of our less developed periods - but we have only so many editors interested in Polish matters, and I think nobody is very interested in that period (my favourite is the time of PLC, then SPR and IIWW). Hopefully this will change at some point as we gain more editors.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Repnin/Bar conf

 * This sentence "Nonetheless the Russian intervention led to the Confederation of Bar, which practically destroyed the ambassador's (Repnin's) handiwork. The resulting civil war in Poland, involving Russia, lasted from 1768 to 177" - in what sense did CoB destroy his handiwork? It did lead to CoB but CoB itself led to the first partition so... in a way the handiwork paid off (and there are some who would argue that Repnin purposefully provoked Bar). Needs clarification.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh I see the first sentence of the next section sort of addresses my question. Still think this needs to be clarified - Repnin lost but eventually Russia gained.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Why was Volkonsky dismissed? Was it just standard rotation in Catherine's bed chamber?Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Repnin to Saldern: this is related to the questions above. The political background here is something like this: after the Great Northern War, for all intents and purposes Russia controlled Poland and could do with it as it pleased. Once that was firmly established, political instability within in Poland WAS NOT in Russia's interest as it provided an excuse for other outside powers, particularly Prussia, to meddle. So I'm pretty sure Catherine was pissed at Repnin for providing Prussia an "in" via the Bar Confederation. Volkonsky and Saldern made this matter worse. From point of view of Russia - at that moment in time - the first partition was a LOSS as they had to give up some territory they controlled (albeit indirectly) to Prussia. It was a compromise, and one which was partly made possible by the warming of relations. Basically I think a little bit of background could be added here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * "von Stackelberg, and the entire Russian control over Poland, was soon to suffer a major defeat. " - again, I think this is a bit strong. It's important to keep in mind how all this eventually ended. A temporary setback yes. A major defeat though? Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, the (essentially minor) quibbles above aside, this article is clearly up to B standards, as well as GA (though that is best left for regular GA reviewers). One FA-level criticism I can make has to do with the structure and purpose of the article. Basically the article tells the story of the run up to and of the partitions of Poland but through the telling of the story of the Russian ambassadors' part in making it happen (of course Prussian ones played a role as well). This is actually a very clever narrative device. But the danger then is that the story of the partitions comes to overshadow the actual topic of the article which is the ambassadors themselves. I know a good bit has been written on their personalities, foibles, the way they rose and fell etc. and the article should probably incorporate a bit more of this kind of details - as "trivia" as that might sound - before being ready for FA.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the review. I'll attempt to address the above issues before I nominate this article for GA. Your last point is quite interesting. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk 01:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ambassadors and envoys from Russia to Poland (1763–1794). 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081205130036/http://info-poland.buffalo.edu/classroom/constitution.html to http://info-poland.buffalo.edu/classroom/constitution.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)