Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Polish culture during World War II

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

Polish culture during World War II

Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 16:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Previous nomination: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Polish culture during World War II/Archive 1

I am nominating this article for A-class a second time. Since the article was failed two months ago, it has been significantly expanded (from ~45k to ~65k of text). Notably, I was also able to acquire and incorporate material from what is, according to most sources, the most exhaustive (and often cited) book on the subject (Czesław Madajczyk, Polityka III Rzeszy w okupowanej Polsce, Tom II (Politics of the Third Reich in Occupied Poland, Part Two), Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1970 - or to be specific, its chapters 27, 28 and 29, dealing with Polish culture, Polish education and German Nazi propaganda, respectively). In other words, I believe that the article is now a comprehensive (and well written, having gone through several copyedits in the last few months) treatment of the "Polish culture during World War II".

Since this is a renomination, I have prepared "a reply to common criticisms I've encountered in the past". I would strongly suggest you read the article before you read that reply, and read it only if you think that the article is not comprehensive or biased (as those were the points I am addressing). Those replies are available here. Again, you don't have to read them (they are a bit on the long side anyway) unless you want to vote oppose on the grounds of comprehensively or bias; accordingly, please read them before you do so.

Seriously, I believe that article as it is the most comprehensive treatment of the subject in English language, and if it were to be translated directly into Polish, it would be the best online treatment of that subject as well. By all means, try to prove me wrong and motivate me into improving it more - but pretty please, keep your criticism civil :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: On what basis do you defend your narrow defintion of Polish? Jews were not Polish because they weren't Catholics? Wandalstouring (talk) 15:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As explained in my FAQ, on the basis of its definition in every single source on the subject. But in any case, the article does discuss Jewish culture as well, so I am not sure what you mean? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References comments; opposing on criterion A1 - (review is of this version)
- ~~Three disambigs need attention.~~
  - Fixed.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Six external links need to be checked.~~
  - I found only 4 links with problems. I've fixed one with a link to Archive and a mirror; another once seems to work (its a pdf download link), two others seem dead - I suggest leaving them for a few days and if they are not fixed by then, we can remove the external link and change formatting on the reference (the reference, fortunately, is backed up by another one, so it shouldn't be a major issue, we will just have two offline ref for one sentence).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Why does the first mention of Madajczyk occur in ref #3 when the full citation is in ref 4? Can the full citation be moved to the bibliography for the readers' sake?~~
  - That's a different Madajczyk publication, an article from 1980. All the other Madajczyk references are to a 1970 book.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~What makes ref #5 reliable?~~
  - I've clarified that its a publication from a 2004 academic conference; author Adam Redzik is a reliable and notable historian.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - If that is reliable, can you format it using one of the cite templates (like {{cite web}} or {{cite paper}})?
    - I tend to dislike those templates as they are cumbersome, and make the references look even worse in text. I have no objection if somebody else wants to add them.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's your choice to use them. :-) Can you just add an access date? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 20:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref #13: God's Playground should be italicized, and can you move this to the bibliography and use a shortened footnote instead, considering that ref 108 uses the same book. Also, is "God's Playground" the full title? 108 has a different, longer, title.
  - They are the same book. I've standardized the refs, hope this is more clear now.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Ref #17 needs a language like 20 or 31 do.~~
  - Fixed.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref #17, 20, 21, 41, 42, 62, 65, 58, 69, 104, 106 and 114 (and I probably missed some). The formatting, like access dates (for instance), needs to be consistent!
- What makes http://www.przeglad-tygodnik.pl/index.php?site=artykul&id=332 reliable?
  - Notable magazine? Przegląd.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Ref #30: United States Holocaust Museum should not be italicized.~~
  - Blame the cite web template; I have no idea how to fix it other then to remove the template... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fixed; you had to use |publisher= instead of |work. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 20:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Ref #31: what makes http://www.polishresistance-ak.org/ reliable?~~
  - London Branch of the Polish Home Army Ex-Servicemen Association seems like a reliable NGO; whatsmore, most of articles published on their pages are by reliable scholars (ex. Grzegorz Ostasz ([1]).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref #59 and 103: why are these alone in having a link to the bibliography below? Consistency again.
  - Different editors using different editing styles... I kind of like this one, but it is not the one I've been using in the past. Suggestions how to easily standardize them appreciated.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ref #61 is still linked and needs a page number.
      - It was added by User:Molobo, I'll notify him of the page request.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Ref #60: what other ref is this referring to? Can the full citation just be moved to the bibliography?~~
  - Fixed.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Ref #61: consistency problem.~~
  - Fixed.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Ref #69: what makes http://www.kasprzyk.demon.co.uk/www/index.html reliable?~~
  - Not much; I've rewritten the sentence with a reliable source.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Ref #71: title should not be in all caps, even if the reference's actual title on the page is like that.~~
  - Fixed.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Ref #85: extra apostrophe?~~
  - Fixed.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Overall: some of your links to specific Google Books pages are just [GoogleBooksLink p.000], while others are [GoogleBooksLink Google Print, p.000] Can you standardize this?~~
  - Fixed.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:IMAGE stuff (technically not required for A-class, but listing here anyway):
- Images should not be under third-level headings.
- Image sizes (e.g. 220px) should not be forced.
- There are many image sandwiches in the article on my screen.
Random shots
- The lead should probably be expanded a bit.
  - Hmmm, with what? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Gah! The end of the "Print" section is a mass of links. Are all of those needed?
  - I'd think yes, if you mean the list of names, they are all relevant and referenced to a source.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
—Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 03:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - General comment: it make take me a few days to address all of the issues, particularly, the MoS ones. If any other editors can help with this gnomish work, that would be much appreciated.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Massively better than the last time it came up for review. While it still could use copy-editing, I have made it a little bit better in that regard, and have done what I could about the image sandwiching. Almost every single image was sandwiched before, and by rearranging and removing one of them that seemed least helpful I've mostly rectified that. Ed's comments need to be resolved before this passes, but in the meantime, at least for the parts of articles that I usually check, it seems OK. – Joe N 17:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I didn't read it the first time around, but I haven't much fault to find. I left some tags, but you've already dealt with those. My only remaining nit is that the Niall Ferguson references are in a different format from the others; this should be easy enough to fix. Magic♪piano 22:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree with the above, much better now than it was last time. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.