Talk:Sejm of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth

B-class

This article meets the B-class criteria. A candidate for good article I think. Confirmed for WP:POLAND by Orczar (talk) 15:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Polsk riksdag

Unreferenced para moved from talk. Feel free to restore with references, and when it is reworded to sound less like trivia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 04:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Interestingly, the expression 'Polish parliament' (in Swedish: Polsk riksdag) occurs in modern Swedish and Norwegian to denote organizational anarchy and disorder. This is suggested to have originated from comparisons to the veto right in the Polish Sejm during Commonwealth times, which was likely an unthinkable liberty in the authoritarian systems of neighbouring countries, including the Swedish Absolute Monarchy.

Capitalization

The name of a specific sejm, e.g. the "Great Sejm", is naturally capitalized. Other than that, "the sejm" and "the senate", in the sense of a general institution, should be either consistently capitalized or not, at least within the same article, I think. Since "sejm" is not capitalized in the article's name (title), I changed it (and the senate) to the lower case throughout the article. Orczar (talk) 06:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Good call. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 22:23, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:General sejm/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 17:56, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 17:56, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Initial comments

I've completed a quick scan-read of the article, but I've not checked any of the references or citations, and it appears to be at or about GA-level (however, the Lead seems a bit "short), so I'll carry out a more detailed review.

I'm going to leave the WP:Lead until last, and start at the Etymology section, work my way to the end and then do the Lead. Please note: this part is most about clarifying parts that need clarifying, so I'll mostly be discussing "problems" here. Pyrotec (talk) 13:32, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The lead was inadequate, I've revised it now. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks. Pyrotec (talk) 22:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

• Etymology -

• Looks OK.

• Genesis -

• Y Pyrotec (talk) 20:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC) - I'm not sure what is meant by in the first paragraph by: Popular participation in public policy making in Poland ..... Popular (in English) can mean: (1) liked or admired by ... (which I suspect is not the intended meaning); and (2) related to the general public. As later in the same paragraph, it is stated that only powerful nobles participated, I'm tempted to suggest that the word "Popular" is removed from the start of the sentence. Is there another intended meaning that I have overlooked?

• Changed to "Public participation in policy making in Poland". Should be clear now, I hope. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• Y Pyrotec (talk) 20:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC) - The next sentence states: Another form of democratic decision making was that of royal election .... and in the following sentence it states: The election privilege was usually limited to the most powerful nobles (magnates) or officials..... I', somewhat unsure whether this is democracy, its more like Aristocracy?

• Well, it's not that different from representative democracy. But I changed democratic to public, should be less controversial. You are somewhat right that in this early period, while the process was somewhat democratic early on, it became limited to oligarchy (ąristocracy) soon afterward, before going back (the general sejm and sejmiks). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• Otherwise OK.

• Duration and frequency -

• Looks OK.

• Political influence -

• The first paragraph seems to somewhat contradict itself, but perhaps that is just a question of grammar. It states:-

• The king could not pass laws himself without the approval of the sejm, .... (Yes, that is clear - Pyrotec (talk))
• ...a law passed by the sejm had to be agreed by the three estates (the king, the senate and deputies from the sejm proper - the lower chamber)
• The three estates of the sejm had the final decision in legislation on ....
• The sejm could also legislate in the absence of the king, although such legislation would have to be accepted by the king ex post.[12] (Yes, that is clear - Pyrotec (talk))

• The "difficulty" is the King is one of the three estates of the sejm

• Yes, king was one of the three estates, besides the senate and the chamber of deputies (sejm proper, lower chamber, the terminology gets a bit murky here). I am not sure what to do to make the text more clear? (Another ref clearly listing the three estates, although I don't think it is needed: Andrzej Ajnenkiel (1991). Polskie konstytucje. Wydawnictwa Szkolne i Pedagogiczne. p. 66. ISBN 978-83-02-04672-8. Retrieved 18 October 2012.). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• Otherwise OK. Pyrotec (talk) 20:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Argh, I missed this review till now. I'll respond to issues raised within 24h. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

That's OK, I've not been editing for four days, so I'm only just catching up with where I left off. Pyrotec (talk) 20:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• Proceedings -

• Looks OK.

• Location -

• The toolbox is indicating three two links to disambig pages: Kamień & Liw, the first name appears in this section and the second name in the Composition section (in the table).

• Should be fixed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, its fixed. Pyrotec (talk) 20:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

• Composition -

... stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 21:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• I'm sorry for the long (unplanned) delay. I'm now continuing. Pyrotec (talk) 20:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

• In general, looks OK, but see below.

• There are two bullet-pointed sections in the same paragraph which have the repeated phrase "....during the era of the Great Sejm (1788-1792)", i.e. wikilinked back to this article. So (minor point) there is OVERLINKING and linking back on its self. I would recommend that both wikilinks are removed.
• However, the main problem is that this article does not seem to verify this repeated claim: the start of the lead states "The general sejm (Polish: sejm walny, also translated as the full or ordinary sejm) was the parliament of Poland for four centuries from the 15th until the late 18th century.". I've not found exact dates in the body of the article (perhaps I've missed it), there is mention in both the Political influence and Proceedings sections of The Constitution of May 3, 1791 finally abolished the liberum veto, replacing it by majority voting, in most important matters requiring 75% of the votes and sejms were to be held every two years. So it appears that perhaps only one sejm, or perhaps none, was held after the May 3, 1791 (the end of the lead states: It is estimated that between 1493 and 1793 sejms were held about 240 times.).

• Special sessions -

• Looks OK.

• WP:Lead -

• In general, looks OK.
• Note: the end of the lead states It is estimated that between 1493 and 1793 sejms were held about 240 times., so perhaps 1793 was the last one (see later comments).

• Scope (WP:WIAGA clauses 3 (a) & (b) -

• Overall, compliant.
• My only concern, and that has arisen late in the review, is that the detail stops with the mention of the Constitution of May 3, 1791 and then the article is left hanging. The lead states that they ran from the 15th until the late 18th century: what happened afterwards, i.e. no king, no parliament, no Poland (I don't know the answer and the article does not appear to answer it other than a link in See also to Order of precedence in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth).

At this stage, I'm going to put the review On Hold. I would expect that this article will soon be a GA, but I'd like the points above to be resolved first. Pyrotec (talk) 22:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

• I hope that this will clarify the 1793 issue; and I think that no other issues are remaining? (I also tried to deal with the noted overlinking). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

• Woops, I did not read it properly, this article is General sejm not the Great sejm! Pyrotec (talk) 20:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

A interesting and "easy to review" article on a topic that I'd not met before.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I'm awarding this article GA-status. Congratulations on producing an informative, well referenced and well-illustrated article on this topic. Pyrotec (talk) 20:29, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Changes by user:Glovacki

Piotr, before you start reverting Glovacki's changes -- I like them and I think they should be improved upon. I think it standardizes article titles well and creates a series of articles with clear chronological limits. I might even do some work on this. Renata (talk) 17:51, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

@Renata3: I agree with the new structure of the articles (separate articles for Sejm of Kingdom of Poland and PLC). My concern is that the split done by User:Glovacki has been done without sufficient care, and has adversely affected this Good Article. For example, the sentence "In the mid-15th century..." clearly belongs to the Kingdom of Poland section, ditto for "After 1543 the resolutions were written in Polish rather than Latin". Except the single new paragraph in Genesis which summarizes the history of the Seimas, the article still refers to the history of the Polish Sejm. Those things should be clarified in text. It would be nice if user:Glovacki would join our conversation here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:55, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I will try to rewrite this good article. --Glovacki (talk) 16:12, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll be looking fwd to seeing how you handle it. Feel free to ask me any questions (I am the author of the old version of this article). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:11, 22 December 2015 (UTC)