Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

Self-nom. I have worked on this article for the past few months, and I believe it has now reached a stage we may consider it for FA. I intend to develop subarticles from its sections in the future, but for now I think the article is around optimal content lenght. Yes, it is a bit larger then 32kb but I am not sure what could be removed *now*. Anyway I'd love to hear your comments on what can be improved. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 12:27, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Neutral: This is very interesting and may well be featured article material; but frankly I lost the plot half way through, I think it needs a good copy edit, preferably by someone with knowledge of the subject, the many Polish, or eastern European terms and names seem to have an erratic application of the definite article. The page does also seem to be quite heavy work, especially trying to remember who the "Kresy", the "Sejm" and the "szlachta" and their assorted friends and enemies are. To be fair, the terms are explained in the article, but perhaps more user friendly terms could be used throughout for the benefit of the less retentive like myself. Perhaps it should be referred to Wikipedia:Peer review rather than here. Giano 18:43, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Could you expand on the erratic application? I'd be happy to fix any inconsistencies and such regarding the names and such. As far as examples you mention: the term Kresy is explained two times (first and second time it is used in the article); same with Sejm and szlachta (I improved the sentence they first are used in, it was: ....with its uniquely powerful Sejm parliament dominated by szlchta nobles..., now is: Its extremly powerful parliament (known as the Sejm) dominated by dominated by nobles (known as the szlachta).... As far as I know, there are no other English translations of those words. Kresy is a geographical name, referning to Sejm as the parliament would be as erroneus as for US Senat or Congress, and szlachta are as distinct from 'nobles' as are for example Russian boyars, again meriting its own word. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 10:41, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• e.g. the term "szlachta" sometimes has a "the", sometimes not; perhaps sometimes a "the" is not required but often it reads as thought it is, this is a very monor quibble,easily sorted. The article is improving all the time. A time on Wikipedia:Peer reviewwould be very beneficial Giano 09:31, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• The English isn't very good. I did what I could to help, fixed some typos and improved some grammar at points, but it needs more work. Not an objection, though. Everyking 23:39, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I am sorry about the English. It is not my strongest point as I am not a native speaker. I am afraid there is little more I can do about that complain - hopefully you can do more. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 10:41, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I've proofread it - how is it now? - David Gerard 15:18, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Very interesting subject and article. However, I'm not certain that it is up to FA status yet, on account of the points raised above, with which I concur. I would refer to peer review. Jacob1207 16:31, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I've done a proofreading - how is it now? - David Gerard 15:18, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• excellent. support - Xed 00:10, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Andris 10:56, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Support.--Emax 14:58, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. ('though still anxiously) - Halibutt 08:51, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Support, but only after a copyedit. I've done a few sections. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:45, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support - this is good and interesting. I copyedited it, are there others who could check it over? - David Gerard 15:18, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)