Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Moswento (talk · contribs) 08:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Yo, Piotrus. We meet again! Kudos on putting so much work into such an important article. It's about time that someone reviewed it, so I'll jump in this week. I imagine the review comments will come in two parts, as it's quite a long article! Take care, Moswento ^talky 08:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Here is the first part of my review. This is mainly just comments on the text following my first readthroughs. Overall, the article is good, well-sourced, comprehensive (assuming a bit of good faith here as I don't speak Polish) etc. However, some parts of the text are a bit unclear at the moment. Once these comments are addressed, I'll do the second part of my review, which will finish things off, hopefully with a positive result. Moswento ^talky 12:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for responding to my comments. I've done a quick copyedit, and I now think this is ready for promotion. Keep up the good work! Until we meet again, take care, Moswento ^talky 08:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

• "The first sejmiks were regional assemblies in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, and earlier in the Kingdom of Poland." - this needs rewording. The first sejmiks were not in the P-L Commenwealth, if there were earlier sejmiks in the Kingdom of Poland!
• Any chance you could bulk out the lead a bit? It seems rather lightweight for an article of this size. Something about their jurisdiction, types etc.
  • Done and done. If you think more could be added to the lead, please let me know, or just edit it - leads are often best created by secondary authors, IMHO, as primary ones may not best pick up on the interesting parts of the article :)

Etymology

• Is there a way of moving this into the History section? Perhaps not, but I always think one-sentence sections are best avoided if at all possible.
  • I see your point, but I prefer articles to have a dedicated etymology section if data is available.

History

• Dating of sejmiks - you make three separate statements about this, which could be better combined and consolidated:
  • "Sejmiks date to the late 14th century when they arose from gatherings of nobility, formed for military and consultative purposes"
  • "Historians disagree with respect to the specific date of origin of the sejmiks, with some proposed dates being 1374 (Privilege of Koszyce) and 1454 (Nieszawa Statutes)."
  • "The sejmiks first arose in central Poland (Greater Poland province), around the late 14th and early 15th centuries."
    • Fixed.
• Wikilink Jacek Jędruch
• "Jacek Jędruch notes a trend of an increasing number of sejmiks over time, as nobility sought to meet in places that required less travel time, noting that the number of sejmiks increased from about 16 in the 1400s to 104 by the late 1700s" - The "noting that the number of sejmiks" is redundant and makes the sentence overly long. Why not "Jacek Jędruch notes a trend of an increasing number of sejmiks over time, from about 16 in the 1400s to 104 by the late 1700s, as nobility sought to meet in places that required less travel time"?
  • Fixed.
• "(the period of Polish anarchy)" - this links to an article on 20th-century anarchism. Maybe you could just explain in a few words why the central power weakened?
  • Fixed, by removing the phrase and linking History_of_Poland_(1569–1795)#Decay_of_the_Commonwealth.
• Wikilink Magnates to Magnates of Poland and Lithuania?
  • Done.
• "In the 16th century..." - The order of this paragraph and the next paragraph might be better and easier to read if switched. The chronology and focus could be sharpened. I would suggest:
  • Para 1: About the resurgence of the sejmiks. "The sejmik's role grew again in the late 17th century, as central power weakened (the period of Polish anarchy). They attained their peak at the turn of the 18th century..."
  • Para 2: Focus on the 18th-century sejmiks and the influence of the Magnates. E.g. "Where the middle nobility were the leading force at the sejmiks in the 16th century, the magnates became increasingly influential in the 18th century. This stemmed from their ability..."
  • Done.
• "as all nobles were eligible to vote in the sejmiks." - Do you need all 5 footnotes? It's not a particularly controversial statement I don't think. Multiple footnotes hinder readability!
  • IIRC, the reason for this is that various refs support various parts of the sentence (ex. the usage of the term clientele). I guess it is a bit overreferenced, but... I am not sure which refs support what, at this point :>
• "Sejmiks were significantly reformed..." - this sentence has a confusing number of subclauses. Perhaps mention the act of regional sejms first, and then mention that it was recognized as part of the Constitution in May?
  • Rewritten, I hope it's clear now.
• "300,000 of 700,000" - Just a small point, but "300,000 out of 700,000" might read better
  • Done.
• "The institution of the sejmik survived the partitions of Poland in 1795 which ended the independent existence of the Commonwealth, albeit in a somewhat restricted fashion" - this currently reads as if the Commonwealth's existence was ended in a restricted fashion! Maybe "Although the independent existence of the Commonwealth ended with the partitions of Poland in 1795, the institution of the sejmik continued, albeit in a somewhat restricted fashion"?
  • Done.
• "Similarly, the institution of sejmik was preserved in Congress Poland, where sejmiks elected deputies" - unnecessarily wordy. "Similarly, sejmiks in Congress Poland elected..."
  • Done.
• "preserving traditions of sejmiks in the Prussian partition" - ", which preserved the tradition of sejmiks in the Prussian partition"?
  • Done.
• "consciously chosen" - the "consciously" is not necessary, lowers the formality
  • Done.
• "the communist People's Republic of Poland era" - I think "communist era" would be sufficient
  • Done.

Sejmiks

Features

• "sejmik marshal (marszałek sejmiku: presiding officer of the sejmik)" - "sejmik marshal" and "presiding officer" seem to be the wrong way round here?
  • Nor sure I know what you mean here, if you'd like to reword it, please go ahead.
• "a loophole was put into practice" - this is an odd phrase to use. Loopholes are generally either "found" or "exploited"
  • Fixed.

Sejmiks

Types

• "Voivoeship" - I assume this is a typo (but didn't want to correct it in case I also make a typo)
  • Fixed.
• "...general (of several voivdeships), provincial to the final,..." - Feels like there's a word missing here. Perhaps "...and provincial sejmiks, to the final..."?
  • Reworded even more.
• "The importance of the local sejmiks was greatest in the 15th century" - This seems to contradict the statement in the 'History' section that "Sejmiks attained the peak of their importance at the turn of the 18th century,". Could you clarify please?
  • Reworded.
• "Pre-sejm (Polish: przedsejmowe)" - the word "sejmiks" is missing here
  • Well, I use only adjectives here on purpose. I think it is consistent throughout the "Types" section. Is it confusing?
• "on occasion the instructions could be vogue" - do you mean "vague"?
  • Fixed.
• "Such sejmiks could also hear special requests from the king" - I had to read this sentence three times to work out what you were saying. Might be an idea to shorten/rephrase.
  • Reworded.
• "and met on a yearly basis." - It might be clearer to move this to the start of the Deputational section, e.g. "sejmiks met annually to elect deputies (deputaci) to tribunals..."
  • Done.
• "Often, it was held " - "Often, they were held" (the subject of the verb is "sejmiks")
• "Kriegseisen, quoting Adam Lityński, argues..." - maybe this would be better mentioned at the beginning, rather than the end of the section? Also, Kriegseisen's first name would be good.
  • Kriegseisen's first name is already mentioned earlier, so I think MoS recommends using only surname on second mention? Reworded the section per suggestion.

Historiography

• My main concern here is that this section is based entirely on the views of Kriegseisen. Are there any other authorities you could quote? Perhaps someone who offers a negative view? Someone else offering a supporting moderated view?
  • I did not find any significant description in any other body of work; other cited works usually discuss the sejmiks, Kriegseisen was the only one with anything substantial to say about others discussing this topic, rather than the topic itself.
• "Kriegseisen also notes...and notes" - could you change the second "notes"?
  • Reworded. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]