Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Second Partition of Poland/1

Second Partition of Poland

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Second_Partition_of_Poland/1&action=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)

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&#124; reply here 23:26, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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&#124; reply here 16:04, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)