Talk:Żydokomuna/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I'll be reviewing this article shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
A couple of phrasing concerns and a bit more in the lead
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
one spot I'm concerned about not representing all points of view
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Specific concerns

Lead could be a bit longer. A couple more sentences would suffice, it just feels skimpy.
Political heritage section: "The concept of a Jewish conspiracy threatening Polish social order dates in print to the pamphlet..." seems awkward to me. Maybe remove the "in print"?
Origin section, first paragraph. The quote "Many Poles felt directly threatened both by the prospect of revolution and by Russian imperialism in a new guise, which they saw embodied in the Soviet regime." needs a citation right on it. All quotations need to be directly attributed.
- Sentence rewritten and attributed.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Origin section, second paragraph "Accusations of Żydokomuna accompanied a wave of anti-Jewish violence in Poland, 1918–20, when violence against..." you've got the "anti-Jewish violence in Poland, 19818-1920" redlinked, suggest piping the link so that the flow of the sentence is better. Perhaps "anti-Jewish violence in Poland during the years 1918-1920".
- The name is based on Anti-Jewish violence in Poland, 1944–1946.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with the redlink name, I'm just suggesting it be piped. [[Anti-Jewish violence in Poland, 1918–20|anti-Jewish violence in Poland during the years 1918-1920]] like so so that the flow of the actual sentence is better. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I misunderstood you. Piped.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Origin section, third paragraph, need to take care of the "citation needed" tag there.
- Couldn't find a ref for mastermind, sentence removed.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interbellum section, fifth paragraph, need to take care fo the citation needed tag there.
- Ref added.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Need to take care of the citation needed tage in World War II aftermath (first paragraph)
- Rewritten with refs.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a hair concerned that "Chodakiewicz claims some 3500 to 6500 Poles died in late 1940s because of Jewish denunciations or were killed by Jews themselves." might be a bit POV. Is this figure accepted by most historians? Or do other historians studying the period have different theories?
- I am not certain, but he is a respected and reliable scholar, and the sentence is directly attributed.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My main concern is that we don't know if other historians agree or disagree with him. If most agree, we should note that. If some or most disagree we should note that too. Especially as later in the article it states "In a 2007 book, genocide scholar Omer Bartov has written that "recent writings and pronouncements seem to indicate that the myth of the Żydokomuna (Jews as communists) has not gone away" as evidenced by the writings of younger Polish scholars, such as Marek Chodakiewicz, contending Jewish disloyalty to Poland during the Soviet occupation." which seems to argue that Bartov at least has qualms about Chodakiewicz in some manner. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scholars disagree. I think that Marek Jan Chodakiewicz, who unlike Bartov, held a position at the USHMC, is more reliable, and I'd value works of modern historians more then less scholarly and more emotional older works. In any case, as I said below, any issues with neutrality are solved by attributing him. There are no questions about his reliability, and nobody has presented a different POV on this issue anyway. PS. I changed "claims" to "notes" per WP:WEASEL. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1960's-1989 the very last sentence needs a citation.
- Rm unreferenced sentence.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All in all a very nice work. I took the liberty of doing some copyediting. Just the few spots of concerns and I'll be happy to pass this as a GA.

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am leaving minor style issues to others, as they are not my expertise. I hope I've addressed all the content issues.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]