Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Constitution of May 3, 1791/archive2

Addressed comments from Crisco 1492

 * Image review from Crisco 1492
 * File:Konstytucja 3 Maja.jpg is fine. Regarding the caption, the bit about the castle could be trimmed.
 * File:Rejtan Upadek Polski Matejko.jpg is fine. Regarding the caption, the period should be replaced by a semi-colon (not a full sentence) and the "i" made miniscule.
 * I don't understand what you mean. Which ;, what letter i? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 17:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant the first period (the one after a sentence fragment). Miniscule meant lower case (my mind blanked and I took a French word) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * File:Stanisław Augustus Poniatowski.jpg is correctly tagged, but it needs better source information. Regarding the caption, similar to the Retjan image.
 * Added more precise source link. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 17:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * File:RNieustająca.jpg needs a US PD-tag (PD-1923 would probably be best). Also, as the artist is unknown PD-70 cannot apply.
 * Added the PD-1923 tag, but as the artist is not immortal, and died no later than the 19th century, I think PD-70 is fine. But I have also added commons:Template:Anonymous-EU, I think it fits. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 17:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That's perfect. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * File:The Vote upon theConstitution of May 3, 1791.PNG needs the lifespan of the author and a US PD tag (PD-100 in this case). Caption needs a period
 * Lifespan was given - (1771 or 1772-1812) - what's wrong with it? PD-100 added. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 17:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, right. Check this out. Looks cleaner. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * File:Chamber of Polish Senate in Warsaw Royal Castle.png is fine copyright-wise, but it would be great to have a cleaner picture of the chamber (not required, but would be better)
 * It would, but I am afraid from looking at commons:Category:Senate Chamber (Royal Castle, Warsaw) this is the best we have for now. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 17:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * File:Stanislaw malachowski.jpg needs the lifespan of the creator (in the image source)
 * Added.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 17:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * File:Hugon Kołłątaj.PNG is fine.
 * File:Ignacy Potocki.PNG is fine copyright wise. I prefer File:Ignacy Potocki 2.JPG because it's clearer.
 * Switched.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 17:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * File:Stanisław Staszic.PNG needs a publication date and correct US and Polish PD tags (anonymous work, so PD-70 doesn't apply).
 * I've identified the author and date (1826), but as far as I can tell the author is not described in any source, perhaps this is the only painting of his that has been ID, so I cannot provide any life span dates. Still, 1826 should make it a PD work. What tags would you suggest? Also, we have the File:Stanislaw Staszic.jpg version, which do you think is better? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 17:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * File:Scipione Piattoli.PNG needs an information box, including name of the original artist, lifespan, publication year, etc. Needs a proper PD tag as well (US and Polish).
 * Box added, I've also added tl:PD-Art|PD-old-100. Is this fine? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 17:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, that's good. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * File:Manuscript of the Constitution of the 3rd May 1791.PNG - If this is an original manuscript, don't you have the drafters in the article? If you do, you could include their names and change this to PD-100. Either way, this needs a better PD tag for the US.
 * They may not be on that page; I am not sure exactly what part of the constitution this is; one day somebody needs to properly describe this and other pages, and upload better ones. Sigh. Added main drafters, updated the license, let me know if this is better. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 17:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that's better, yes. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * File:May constitution pre20th cent book cover.jpg - If anonymous PD-70 doesn't apply. This needs a source, information box, description, year of publication, and US PD tag as well (probably PD-1923).
 * Added box, source, and the tag, plus the most informative description I was able to find. We can ID the publisher, but I doubt we can ever ID the author of the picture, cover, and so on. Is this good enough? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 17:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Added EU template. Looks fine now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * File:Warsaw Uniwersity Botanical Garden świątynia opatrzności.jpg is fine. Regarding the caption, I suggest "Unfinished Temple of Divine Providence, in Warsaw's Botanical Gardens, at Ujazdów Avenue. Cornerstone was laid on May 3, 1792, to commemorate the Constitution of May 3, 1791, by King Stanisław August Poniatowski and his brother, Primate Michał Jerzy Poniatowski." be replaced with "Unfinished Temple of Divine Providence, in Warsaw's Botanical Gardens, at Ujazdów Avenue; the cornerstone was laid by King Stanisław August Poniatowski and his brother, Primate Michał Jerzy Poniatowski, on May 3, 1792, to commemorate the Constitution of May 3, 1791."
 * Done. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 17:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * File:Medal commemorating Constitution of May 3, 1791.png needs a PD template for the underlying work.
 * Is PD-art good enough? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 17:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * PD-Art is for two dimensional works. Check out what I did there. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * No prose comments until the images have been dealt with. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Prose comments from Crisco 1492
 * "threw in his lot" - Sounds rather familiar. Perhaps a more encyclopedic term?
 * "that the Commonwealth was heading for a partition by Russia, Brandenburg and Austria." - Sounds awkward to me, any other phrasings?
 * "There were also reform attempts in the Wettin era, led by individuals such as Kazimierz Karwowski, Stanisław Dunin-Karwicki, Stanisław A. Szczuka and Józef Massalski; for the most part they proved to be futile." - Can this be merged somewhere?
 * "had been deputy to the Sejms of 1750, 1758, 1760, 1761, 1762 and 1764." - "had been deputy to several Sejms between 1750 and 1764." (or another way to avoid that list)
 * "economic matters including taxation" - could you drop "including taxation" from this?
 * "Frederick II the Great" - Perhaps just "Frederick the Great" or "Frederick II", as Frederick II the Great sounds odd to me.
 * "except that the right to apply the death penalty against serf laborers was in this legislation taken away from their szlachta overlords." - Including this makes the sentence a little long, methinks. A way to rework it?
 * - until 1773 - - is this necessary?
 * "also rather conservative," - is "rather" necessary?
 * "A civil war began in Poland, waged by the Confederation with the goal of overthrowing the King and fought on until 1772, when the uprising was overwhelmed by Russian intervention." - This reads awkwardly. Perhaps "The Confederation began a civil war, with the goal of overthrowing the King, but were overwhelmed by Russian intervention in 1772"
 * "King Stanisław August yielded under duress " - Don't think "under duress" is necessary, yielded implies that it wasn't something he wanted.
 * Only 102 deputies - Unclear why "only" is used as we don't know how many deputies there were.
 * That list of notable works is pretty jarring, especially with all those redlinks. Don't think you need to go in that much detail.
 * Double check to ensure you're not linking to the same subject more than once close together. I removed a couple links.
 * That's it for today. I did a copyedit, be sure to check my changes. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks much for having a look, Crisco, I don't think I'm going to have time for this one. - Dank (push to talk) 14:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Piotr, I'd strongly suggest working on these as I go, as there may be a bunch. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Continuing:
 * Overlinking again. Didn't you just link Stanislaw, confederated sejm, and liberum veto in the previous section?
 * "A major opportunity for reform presented itself during the "Four-Year" or "Great Sejm" of 1788–92, which began on October 6, 1788 with 181 deputies, and – in the words of the May 3 Constitution's preamble – from 1790 met "in dual number" when the 171 newly elected Sejm deputies joined the earlier-established Sejm." - Might be better split into two sentences.
 * "seemed to play into the reformers' hands" - That's rather informal. How about "were opportune for the reformers" or something similar?
 * burgher rights - Should explain this here, rather than later (first mention)
 * "the worst possible news have arrived from Warsaw: the Polish king has became almost sovereign." - Became in the original? If so, perhaps you should use sic
 * "The Poles have given the coup de grâce to the Prussian monarchy by voting a constitution" - Probably shouldn't have a link here (direct quote and all that)
 * such as Franciszek Ksawery Branicki, Szymon and Józef Kossakowski, Stanisław Szczęsny Potocki and Seweryn Rzewuski - why the second "and"? Wouldn't "such as Franciszek Ksawery Branicki, Stanisław Szczęsny Potocki, Seweryn Rzewuski, and Szymon and Józef Kossakowski" flow more smoothly?
 * The confederates declared to overcome this revolution, - declared an intention, perhaps? or "they would"?
 * "in the Polish–Russian War of 1792, also known as the War in Defense of the Constitution." - You've repeated this.
 * "nephew Józef Poniatowski and Tadeusz Kościuszko" - reads like there are two nephews. Perhaps clarify who Kościuszko to avoid that.
 * "the infamous Grodno Sejm took place." - Is "infamous" really necessary?
 * Edmund Burke - His opinion is is important because...? Same for Albert Blaustein and Bill Moyers
 * dislawed - Hmm? Dislawed, outlawed, or banned?
 * In 2007, May 3 was declared a Lithuanian national holiday. - Why? That's... out of the blue.
 * Any information on constitution day celebrations outside of Chicago? I feel uncomfortable singling them out.
 * More soon. Gave another copyedit. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Addressed most with the exception of overlinking. Few remaining issues: 1) I'd like to keep the list of notable works, there are an important lead in to the Consititution. 2) burgher rights - I don't see a good way to explain them on first mention, and frankly, they do sound mostly self-explanatory to me: rights for burghers... 3) Burke and others: because they are notable people discussing the Constitution? Burke, because he is famous, and the others, because we had on talk a discussion about the term second, and the solution was to clearly attribute the statements of those who use it. 4) Not sure what's wrong with the Lithuanian holiday mention? 5) I couldn't find any reliable sources for non-Chicago celebrations. IIRC the section was longer, but I removed other mentions due to that reason. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 21:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding Burke and the others, in-text clarification of who they are can go a long way (As Dank said). For example, you could have "Irish statesman Edmund Burke..." and we have context to know it's not a random person. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Jacek Jędruch - Another figure whom we have not context for why his opinion matters
 * "Also by granting to the townspeople in the earlier Free Royal Cities Act (Miasta Nasze Królewskie Wolne w Państwach Rzeczypospolitej) of April 18 (or 21), 1791, stipulated in Article III to be integral to the Constitution, personal security (neminem captivabimus), the right to acquire landed property, and eligibility for offices, including military officers' commissions and public offices, such as reserved seats in the Sejm itself and in the executive commissions of the Treasury, the Police and the Judiciary." - Should be split, and it looks like a sentence fragment (can't find a predicate)
 * Membership in the nobility (szlachta) - didn't you define "nobility" already?
 * Now the voting... - After the passage of the Constitution, the voting... or something similar. Now gives an unclear timeframe.
 * (elective Sejm and appointive Senate) - Perhaps (the elected Sejm and appointed Senate)
 * The royal chancellery should inform - Perhaps "The royal chancellery was to inform "
 * Several terms are not linked at first appearance but later on, like ministers
 * Article X stressed the importance of education of royal children, and tasked the Commission of National Education with this responsibility. - Can this be merged somewhere?
 * (paradoxically, the Great Sejm was itself a confederated sejm) - Does this really need a mention? The contrast is interesting, sure, but we've already noted the Great Sejm was confederated
 * parliament (Sejm) proper, - why not just Sejm proper?
 * "the national police commission" - What's with the italics?
 * Fix the fact tag (direct quote)
 * K, when this is done I'll check your revisions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, above issues addressed with the latest edits. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 21:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)