This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lithuania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Lithuania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LithuaniaWikipedia:WikiProject LithuaniaTemplate:WikiProject LithuaniaLithuania articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Poland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
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)reply
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)reply
YPyrotec (
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?reply
YPyrotec (
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?reply
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 (Ä…ristocracy) soon afterward, before going back (the general sejm and sejmiks). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here16:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)reply
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.
ISBNÂ
978-83-02-04672-8. Retrieved 18 October 2012.). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here16:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)reply
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).
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.).
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).
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)reply
B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with
suitable captions:
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)reply
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)reply
@
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 here15:55, 22 December 2015 (UTC)reply