Talk:Lithuanian Civil War (1697–1702)/GA1

GA Review

IAR closing this as unsuccessful. Please see Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Talk:Lithuanian Civil War (1697–1702)/GA1 for discussion. No prejudice against a renomination should the nominator return at a later date and wish to undertake GAN again. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:15, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: Marcelus (talk · contribs) 11:57, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I will try to review this article, although it may tak a while and I will be adding my notes gradually Marcelus (talk) 11:57, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It will also take me some time to answer all of your notes. Also, I am unsure about how active I will be able to be on Wikipedia during the next few days due to a trip, so I might only be able to answer them later. Cukrakalnis (talk) 20:27, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

General

background of the events should be expanded, it is not mentioned that originally Sapieha was in conflict primarily with King Sobieski, while the Bishop of Vilnius was more a royal tool. It should be mentioned that Sapieha's power was built up by the king as a counterbalance to the Pacs. And it was only later that the Sapiehas turned against Sobieski. The issue of the French party and contacts with the French court, is also important, needs expanding.
- this note still is valid, conflict with bishop was really a conflict with a king Sobieski, the conflict also didn't end in 1694
events of 1695 and 1696 aren't mentioned, conflict with the Radziwiłłs over the Neuburg estate, reconciliation with Brzostowski
- no mention of the Neuburg affair, it's an important context
  - Neuburg affair is mentioned but still lacks detail; there is not mention of "Berlin scandal" and involvement of king's son Jakub, who was berthorted to Karolina Radziwiłł. Also there is no mention of a short "war" between Radziwiłłs and Sapiehas in after her death.
why Republicans are written in italics?

I think I did it initially because I thought it needed to be emphasized, but I decide to remove them in this edit because they look out of place, although italicizing is justified for emphasis following MOS:ITALICS.

the aims and causes of the war, as well as its ultimate conclusion, are not clear. The leaders of the republican camp (Ludwik Pociej, Grzegorz Oginski, Michał Kociełł, etc.) are not mentioned.
- still valid

I have now added the republican leaders in this edit.

if you are reading in Lithuanian, you should look up works of Gintautas Sliesoriūnas, who is an expert on this particular topic

Yes, I have been doing so already.

Lead

Body

although the army was only allowed to station in state estates and was forbidden in church estates, this needs a double checking, because AFAIK Sapieha had right to station his troops in Church estates, but still king supported Brzostowski in the conflict
the bishop excommunited Sapieha in the Vilnius Cathedral, it was an inderdict not excommunication, Sapieha wasn't excluded from the Church community

In Sliesoriūnas' book (2015), he writes in p516 that "The most notable event of that time [talking about the confrontation of the Bishop of Vilnius and Jan Kazimierz Sapieha] was Kazimieras Jonas Sapiega's excommunication [ekskomunika in Lithuanian]". This is reaffirmed in p518 of the same book, where it is written

"On 6 October 1696 in Warsaw, an agreement was signed between the Bishop of Vilnius and the representative of the Lithuanian Grand Hetman. It was agreed upon that there would be some benefits for the Bishop of Vilnius' ecclesiastical land holdings, but the hetman's right to decide whether to quarter the army for winter in the bishop's and church's holdings was, practically speaking, recognized. The nuncio committed himself to declaring the hetman innocent. It was forbidden in the future to excommunicate Lithuania's ministers without the Pope's approval in advance. The bishop refused to call the hetman to the sejm's court. ".

introduction of the Polish language in Lithuanian documents, I don't think it's the best wording, Polish language was already used in documents, from now on it was the sole language of administration

Is this better?

This agreement was between the king and Lithuanian nobility and stated that the Lithuanian army's size was to be slashed by more than half in an attempt to subvert the Sapiehas, thus resulting in diarchy, what kind of diarchy? What agreement, when it was signed?

I hope I have addressed it in this edit.

Jan Sapieha still maintained the will to regain his power and so, the Lithuanian Civil War continued, so why the article ended here?

The problem here is that although the civil war continued, it became too intertwined with the Great Northern War. The sub-chapter dealing with the Lithuanian Civil War in Sliesoriūnas' book of 2015, which is the sub-chapter "4.3 Lithuanian Civil War (1697–1702)", continues onto sub-chapter " 4.4 Great Northern War in Lithuania (1700–1709)". I can only assume that the reason for the cut-off year of 1702 is because, as Sliesoriūnas writes in p550-551, "The Grand Duchy of Lithuania was almost free from the units of the Swedes and their allies Sapieha from the latter half of 1702 until 1704." As for Budreckis, he does not give any ending year for the civil war, instead continuing on about the events in Lithuania during the Great Northern War, as well as touching upon the remaining 18th century - the article's main focus is the Lithuanian Grand Hetmans and so it concerns them mainly.

@Marcelus, I will write my responses &tc. to your points in red for ease, because my responses will be intermingling with your text, so I'm doing it for clarity's sake. I'm dividing up my responses like that because I can't immediately address all the different things you've noticed, so I will address some of them faster, and others a bit slower, due to the necessary reading involved.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 18:58, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

try to double check dates and names, we need more dates of easily datable events like battles. Check if nothing is omitted. For example there is no mention of the agreement of 28 January 1698. Also I'm pretty sure that Sapieha's army in Jurbarkas battle was led by Jerzy not Kazimierz Jan.
- still valid: the article still lacks neccessary context, it omits important events, the narrative is also incomprehensible, it is not clear why some things follow each other. It is still unclear why the article ends with 1702 saying that "the civil war was still going on".

Discussion

@Marcelus and Cukrakalnis: What is the status of this review? Is it still ongoing? CMD (talk) 01:32, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is ongoing, but there was a hiatus. Cukrakalnis (talk) 17:13, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcelus, could you please review this article and whether it meets the criteria for becoming a good article? A lot of what you pointed out previously was added to it since you last reviewed it.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 22:31, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to find some free time to do that Marcelus (talk) 22:50, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marcelus, it's been over three weeks since you last posted, and you've made over a hundred edits elsewhere on Wikipedia while not posting to this review. If you can't prioritize this review, then you should strongly consider calling for a new reviewer. It isn't fair to Cukrakalnis to keep them waiting this long. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:27, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cukrakalnis didn't make any changes since my last update of the review Marcelus (talk) 19:29, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcelus, @Cukrakalnis: it's been a month since the last post here, and six months since this review was opened. What are we doing here, guys? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:21, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Premeditated Chaos It seems like Cukrakalnis lost interest in developing of the article Marcelus (talk) 09:36, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may have to judge the article on its current state then. It doesn't make sense to keep it open for 6 months waiting for the nom to engage. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:11, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not GA quality right now Marcelus (talk) 18:25, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then fail it. The nom can always renominate. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:32, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let's wait a bit for @Cukrakalnis if he still wants to improve the article or not Marcelus (talk) 22:14, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcelus, at this point the review has been open for well over 6 months. The last edits the nom made were at ANI on January 25, during a discussion about the two of you having a content dispute elsewhere in the Lithuania topic area. During that ANI he went so far as to suggest you be TBANned from the area. There's also an open DR request for another dispute between the two of you in the same topic area. There's also continued arguing between the two of you on each others' talk pages during that ANI. With all due respect, this does not suggest that he will be interested in collaborating with you in the GA process on this article any further. Frankly, the amount of squabbling between you two in this topic area suggests to me that you would not be able to collaborate on a GA. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:27, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You'll see the ping, but I've posted to Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations about this nom. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:37, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.