Wikipedia:Peer review/History of Poland (1939–1945)/archive1
History of Poland (1939–1945) edit
Recently this article has undergone a substantial edit (still continuing in some sections), and as a result has been greatly expanded and has quite a few inline citations. Those citations will be standarized over the coming days and I expect that some sections currently being discussed on the article's talk page will be NPOVed over the coming days as well. Assuming that my expectations are correct, what other comments do you have before this article is submitted to FAC?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- This article reeks with POV and inconsistencies. It just went through an extensive edit war (which I don't see ended BTW, just wait for Molobo or Halibutt revert me again). In the midst of an edit war some new sections written in a very controversial form were added to the article, which didn't help neither its style nor NPOV.
- Aside from that, the article goes great length into many things way too narrow for such a broad article as History of Country. Some of this stuff was added to and article just recently in order to bring it closer to a popular view in today's Poland that likes to see itself as a reemerging European power with all her past problems blamed on neighbors and all her own past wrongdoings being denied or down-graded.
- Among other inconsistencies are many repetitions within the article added to it just to put an extra emphasis on things while they bring no new info.
- Finally, it would have been batter to put ALL pre-September 1939 material to the previous article in the series. All events that eventually ended with the war are very interrelated and should be kept together in the previous article. This article would than be entirely about Poland in the WW2.
- In conclusion, this article needs so much improvement at this stage, that peer review is premature. If its editors get to reason, it might be ready in a couple of months, but only if the spirit of cooperation is returned and the opponents try to cooperate rather than call each other names. In the current stage, the peer review is a waste of time. This is just my opinion of course. --Irpen 22:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- Irpen, thank you for your comments. Nonetheless I'd like to hear from Wikipedians not involved in editing this article, as I am afraid we both (and some other editors involved in working on it) may be too concerned with our particular POVs to see the 'big picture'. Things like pro/anti German/Polish/Russian POV are always worked out in the end, and I am confident we will resolve that part of the problem soon.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- Hearing from others is always a good thing to look for. However, there are several venues to call for outside opinions. During the major edit conflict, the right venue is the article RfC or a listing at the request for a Third Opinion board. This is exactly the kind of article we have here. Peer review is the process for rather stable and rather high quality articles to seek for the way to improve them to bring them to FAC level. It is not the case here, and I think a peer review is the wrong venue. Not that it will hurt the article, but other editors expect relatively high quality from the articles placed for Peer review. They come to the articles listed for Peer Review list expecting a FACable article which needs recommendations, rather than a major cleanup or which is in the midst of an edit war. So, I see it as a process violation. That said, I don't mind a peer review. I just wanted to make sure that reviewers understand the what is the situation with an article they are reviewing. --Irpen 23:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- If I didn't think the article is stable and developed enough for PR, I wouldn't have posted it here. Looking at article's recent history, only one section seems to be edited extensively ('Treatment of the Polish citizens under Soviet occupation'), the rest are stable. Whether they are comprehensive enough, and whether the article is missing some other sections or issues, as well as if it is compliant with MoS, is what I want to ask others about.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- Hearing from others is always a good thing to look for. However, there are several venues to call for outside opinions. During the major edit conflict, the right venue is the article RfC or a listing at the request for a Third Opinion board. This is exactly the kind of article we have here. Peer review is the process for rather stable and rather high quality articles to seek for the way to improve them to bring them to FAC level. It is not the case here, and I think a peer review is the wrong venue. Not that it will hurt the article, but other editors expect relatively high quality from the articles placed for Peer review. They come to the articles listed for Peer Review list expecting a FACable article which needs recommendations, rather than a major cleanup or which is in the midst of an edit war. So, I see it as a process violation. That said, I don't mind a peer review. I just wanted to make sure that reviewers understand the what is the situation with an article they are reviewing. --Irpen 23:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- Irpen, thank you for your comments. Nonetheless I'd like to hear from Wikipedians not involved in editing this article, as I am afraid we both (and some other editors involved in working on it) may be too concerned with our particular POVs to see the 'big picture'. Things like pro/anti German/Polish/Russian POV are always worked out in the end, and I am confident we will resolve that part of the problem soon.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
A proper lead section is needed for one. Another thing that should be done is some condensing of the text; Summary style is an FA requirement now and that guideline states that articles exceeding 50KB of prose are almost certainly too long. So far I count 48KB of prose. Some prioritizing needs to be done on what should be in this article vs in daughter articles. But that can wait until after the other issues you mention are fixed (but still before FAC). --mav 01:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- Part of the reason why the text is so long is that some users pasted stuff in it from other articles in order to throw it off-balance. I objected to no avail. Other users wrote whole new sections that would have belonged to other articles, at least in this length, or could have been articles on their own, again to make a point on this or that issue. The talk page records my objection to such a bad faith expansion of the article with details too narrow for such a broad topic. They fell into deaf ears. --Irpen 02:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- Subarticles certainly should and will be made in the near future, currently we are debating what to keep and what to remove, and I certainly think that a 'too long' article is better than a stub. And Irpen, there is only that much that I can take you trying to paint yourself as the sole neutral contributor to the article: you with your pro-Russian POV are no saint either.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- Piotrus, my POV may not be neutral but it is not pro-Russian. Please don't be throwing labels. I also have a thing or two to say about POVs of some here. This aside, another important detail about this very important parade has just been added to the article as well as another extremely important long quote of Molotov. With such important expansions, good luck with ever seeing this article at FAC, which I honestly, would love to see possible while not seeing it happening. --Irpen
- What label would you prefer, just out of curiosity? And we don't need to be so pessimistic. Having FAed such controversial and related topics and History of Poland (1945-1989), Katyn massacre or Polish-Soviet War I feel confident that we can FA this one too. All it takes is some time and good will.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- Piotrus, my POV may not be neutral but it is not pro-Russian. Please don't be throwing labels. I also have a thing or two to say about POVs of some here. This aside, another important detail about this very important parade has just been added to the article as well as another extremely important long quote of Molotov. With such important expansions, good luck with ever seeing this article at FAC, which I honestly, would love to see possible while not seeing it happening. --Irpen
- Subarticles certainly should and will be made in the near future, currently we are debating what to keep and what to remove, and I certainly think that a 'too long' article is better than a stub. And Irpen, there is only that much that I can take you trying to paint yourself as the sole neutral contributor to the article: you with your pro-Russian POV are no saint either.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)