Talk:Polish–Prussian alliance/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 09:01, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Bags this one. Sorry to see its has been here so long. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:01, 6 October 2013 (UTC) Comments Review complete, on hold for seven days for the above to be addressed. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * a significant amount of overlinking, Russian Empire, Ottoman Empire, Russo-Turkish War..., Austrian Empire, Austro-Russian alliance, Triple Alliance and Constitution of 3 May
 * Fixed.
 * a lot of inconsistency in terminology about the Commonwealth, suggest using "Commonwealth" after it is introduced
 * Not sure what you mean here; it's either the Commonwealth or Poland, both are valid here (just like USA/America or UK/Great Britain are today). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Would the Lithuanians be so sanguine? I am asking because I am not familiar with the history, and as a layperson, it looks inconsistent to me. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, to a similar degree that a Scottish or Irish person can sigh when we talk about UK, for example. Generalization, but commonly used in numerous reliable sources. Incidentally, you may enjoy reading my article on the Polish-Lithuanian identity. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps it would be best to clarify that in the lead rather than as a note? It would then make sense to the lay reader that the terms are effectively synonymous, rather than making them chase the note for the information. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not sure how to do it elegantly; as all other Polish themed GA+ I am familiar with (since I wrote most of them...) don't go to any elaborate lengths, IIRC, to explain it. But I am open to any ideas; how would you like to clarify it? The best I could do is to split the current ref 1 in the lead into a note and ref (two separate entities). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:33, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Rather than doing it in the lead, which consistently uses "Commonwealth", perhaps it would be best to do it immediately after it is first mentioned in the body, such as "any idea of reforming the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (also known as the Republic of Poland) was viewed with suspicion not only by its magnates but also by neighboring countries". You could then move the note from the lead to the body and edit it down slightly. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Happy with this aspect now. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:30, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * lang fields needed in refs
 * Done, please let me know if I missed any. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:33, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * single sentence paragraph in "Treaty and..." section
 * Fixed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:33, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Insufficient background to place the Commonwealth in context. Needs at least a main article template and a paragraph on the Commonwealth at the top of the background section.
 * Main links added, but I am not sure what kind of pragraph would be needed. PLC is linked, and interested readers can read about it in a dedicated article; it would certainly be undue to add a paragraph long summary of what a PLC was to all articles mentioning it. I am not even sure how we could explain it in a sentence (or whether we should). Something like "a former European country" is both pretty meaningless, mostly self-explanatory, and again, not done with regards to MoS - we simply mention country names, link them, and that's it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  08:33, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree it would be undue, it is absolutely necessary to meet the requirements of summary style. Diving straight into how the rulers were faring does not provide proper context. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * @User:Peacemaker67: Is this sufficient? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:06, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This really addressing the point further up, not the issue of context. As far as I am concerned, this is the only remaining issue. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:11, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * @[[User:Peacemaker67: I am sorry, I don't understand what you are asking for here. Can you clearly explain it? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:48, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe that the requirement of summary style is that "The original article should contain a section with a summary of the subtopic's article as well as a link to it". To me, that means sufficient background is provided to place the main body of the article in context. I don't think the background section as it stands actually does this. It jumps immediately into how the magnates were managing, without summarising the PLC article. We know next to nothing about the PLC at this point. It certainly is not undue, IMO, to expect a paragraph about the PLC at the top of the background section. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:05, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * @User:Peacemaker67: Fair enough, I've expanded the intro paragraph with sentences adopted from related GAs (May Constitution of Poland and First Partition of Poland): . Is this sufficient know? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * @Piotrus: Have c/e'd the new para. Just check my edits haven't changed any meaning or the accuracy? Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * @Peacemaker67. Ok, I tweaked it a little. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:23, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, done. Passing. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:46, 16 October 2013 (UTC)