Wikipedia:Featured article review/Warsaw Uprising/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept 07:59, 8 July 2007.

Warsaw Uprising edit

Review commentary edit

Original author aware. Messages left at Poland-related Wikipedia notice board, Military history, Polish military history task force, World War II task force and History of Poland. LuciferMorgan 15:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article was awarded FA status in late 2004, but I don't think it satisfies current standards. The important Life behind the front lines and Casualties subsections are stubs, implying it's not as comprehensive as it should be. There are not enough inline citations, and some facts have been flagged as needing citation. One editor has suggested on the talk page that the article has a pro-Polish nationalist slant. A script posting there also listed a number of inconsistencies with WP:MoS. nadav 05:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is on my 'to update' list. I will try to improve the article in the same way I did this FAR but I will admit WU is older and in worse shape than HoP45-89 was. Any help other editors can offer would be appreciated (I asked on Polish and MilHist noticeboards few weeks ago for it but none volunteered...). In its current state its certainly remove, but please check back in two weeks or so.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 06:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on short vacations right now (Kraków and Żywiec), but I'll be back in a week or so. Next monday I could start sourcing and rewriting the article the "Mauthausen-Gusen way", with Davies, Chlebowski and all the stuff I have on my bookshelf. BTW, it could be a good moment to incorporate all the splinters back into the main article. After all the 30kb limit is no longer observed and I believe the idea to divide the article prior to FA nomination was a bad choice. The past 2 years of this article's history prove that the splinter sub-articles are barely ever read and receive no attention. //Halibu tt 10:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear you'd be helping, now I am confident we can do it. And yes, splinters are bad, 9 times out of 10.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 18:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's any hurry. I am sure we can keep this review open for a while while people work on revision. nadav 13:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update. Major work on rewriting the article has begun. Feel free to comment here on current inadequacies, in addition to rewriting and restructuring the article we are well aware of lack of inline citations and will try to provide them in the coming days. Help of native copyeditor would be appreciated.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 18:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus beat me to it, so I'll only add that we'd appreciate as many {{fact}} tags as possible. Really, that helps a lot in sourcing articles as for me some things seem too obvious. //Halibu tt 19:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: article has been expanded and is more comprehensive, we are working on style and citations.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 03:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article does meet criteria. - Vald 15:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concerns are comprehensiveness (1b) and citations (1c). Marskell 03:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Status: how do people feel? I notice work has stopped but it remains tagged. Marskell 08:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove in its current state. Perhaps User:Piotrus will re-nominate after improving it, as he did with Max Weber? DrKiernan 12:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per 1c. I echo DrKiernan's comments. LuciferMorgan 18:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We can wait a couple more days for Halibutt and Piotrus. I left notes for both. Marskell 19:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If they make an attempt to improve the article, can you message me on my talk page to return to this review and reassess my vote? Thanks Marskell. LuciferMorgan 22:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's been five weeks, and work seems stalled. Unless someone lets us know soon that work is progressing, I'll be a Remove. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on it but I am alone. Since without a native speaker we cannot do a good copyedit, I am afraid the project will not move forward enough :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 01:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given I had ancestors die in the uprising I'll have a look if i have time. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find it slightly slanted to reporting from the Polish perspective. The German perspective isn't bad but lacks depth and coverage from the Soviet perspective is superficial. There is some repetition, but I think this is probably as a result of the rewrite, so could be cleaned up (and is listed on the "To do" list). At the moment I'd say remove, but I don't see any urgency to close it as Piotrus still seems to be slowly working on it. Yomangani ^talk 00:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to call this a default keep. I believe this review, at about 10 weeks, has set a record. There's been significant work since the removes were noted and I trust Piotrus and others will keep at it. I'll leave a note on talk. Marskell 07:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.