Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Home Army
A GA clas article, on GA review and with a debate resurrected from mediation archive going on. Comments appreciated, regarding the GA status, current debate and anything else that you think can be added/improved in the article.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 00:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Note: replied to comments below in small font.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 03:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I think it's a really good article. A few suggestions:
- Add more inline citations, at least one per paragraph (preferably at the end of each paragraph) should keep [citation needed] tags from being added all over the place.
- Improved, but we still can use more.
- More chronological details of World War II operations. I think that section should be expanded.
- Expanded.
- The "Structure and Membership" and other technical details that use tables might could go in a separate article in order not to interrupt the flow of the main article.
- The Lithuanian section is so long that it might also stand as a separate article.
- Done, although one user strongly objects, comments on talk page would be appreciated.
Cla68 02:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Quite nice, if a bit on the long side. Some general suggestions:
- The lead ought to be a longer summary of the article; the current one-paragraph version doesn't really provide much. I'd also suggest looking at whether {{Infobox military unit}} would work here.
- Lead expanded. I am not sure how to use the template in this case, though.
- More citations would be helpful; at the very least, the outstanding requests need to be dealt with. (See WP:MILHIST#CITE for some more ideas on this.) Beyond that, the existing citations need to be cleaned up; the external links should be changed to proper footnotes, and the sections at the bottom may need some shuffling (is "Literature" meant to be "Further reading", or a sub-section of "References"?)
- Improved.
- As Cla68 mentioned, the Lithuanian section probably ought to be split out to an article of its own, with only a summary left here (similarly to the Soviet section).
- Done.
- The "See also" section should be done away with.
- 4 see also is not to much, I'll see if the can be incorporated. The red ones, once stubbed, can almost certainly go into article.
Kirill Lokshin 02:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with Kirill about the lead. One more paragraph could be added.
- "There are some accusations of negative actions committed by the AK towards ethnic minorities, particularly the Lithuanians (see below)." This one-sentence paragraph looks stubby and mis-placed as it is now. In general, I think that the second part of "Second World War" needs better writing-more consistent and with better prose flow.
- Sentence removed. Copyediting for nicer prose is not one of my specialities, I am afraid.
- These ugly [citation needed] should go, and the article should be properly cited.
- Improved, per above.
- "Polish communists viewed the underground loyal to the Polish government in exile as a force which had to be removed before they could gain complete control over Poland. Future General Secretary of PZPR, Władysław Gomułka, is quoted as saying: "Soldiers of AK are a hostile element which must be removed without mercy". Another prominent Polish communist, Roman Zambrowski, said that AK had to be "exterminated"." In this paragraph you offer a Polish source. For better verifiability and credibility could you give an English source?
- When I find an English source, I'll, but per WP:RS non-English soruces are permitted; especially when (as in this case) this fragment is not disputed.
- Inconsistent linking of years. Needs fixing per WP:MoS.
- I now see that Rzeczpospolita is the source used to almost all assertions against Soviets and to the whole "Postwar" section. I would suggest once again an English source; it would offer a "sense of objectivity" and would be easier verified.
- They had a nice article on this. Eventually I fully agree it should be replaced by English academic sources... but for now it's all we have.
- "The third AK organization was Wolność i Niezawisłość". Which are the other two? This may happen, becase I read a bit quickly, but I do think "Postwar" could be better written.
- NIE and Delegatura Sił Zbrojnych na Kraj were the two previous ones.
- Citations go after punctuation mark. You are inconsistent. And try, if possible, to place citations at the end of the sentences; not in the middle.
- If we have a controversial fact, I try to reference the fact, not the sentence - especially when it contains information from many sources.
- Officially this is not an object for FA status, but for me there are far too many red links.
- Stubbing all the time...
- "Three out of seven members of the Collective Command of the AK (KG AK) had Jewish origins." This sentence as it is now, it looks like being in the middle of nowhere!
- While most historians agree that AK was largely untainted in collaboration with Nazis in the Holocaust,[8] the accusations of the complicity of single AK members or groups in anti-Jewish violence in Poland are frequently brought up to this day.[8] Why are you using the same citation twice in the same phrase? No obvious reason.
- I think the first part was controversial some time ago, feel free to remove the ref though.
- "However Stalin's aim to ensure that an independent Poland would never reemerge in the postwar period." Is this sentence OK? Is something missing there?
- Clarified, I hope
- "Soviet forces continued to engage the elements of AK long after the war." This phrase needs elaboration. unless you think the issue is covered in "Postwar". In this case, get rid of this stubby one-sentence paragraph, which does not offer a nice ending to the article.
- I like it in the current format as it links back to the postwar section; it is important to note the connection between 'Relations with the Soviets' and 'Postwar history' sections.
- Per Kirill about the "See also" section.
- "In total number of victims of Polish revenge action in the end of June of 1944 in Dubingiai and neighbouring towns of Joniškis, Inturkė, Bijutiškis, and Giedraičiai (town), was 70-100 Lithuanian civilians.[20][15][21]" Do you like the ciations as they look here, because I do not. Wouldn't be better if they were like that [15][20][21]. This is just an example of similar problems.
- "Nonetheless in the recent years there are signs that Polish and Lithuanians historians, and veterans, even if they still do not agree on the same interpretation, are increasingly able to reach some compromises." What is the essence of these compromises? Where does this provisional scholarly consensus lead?--Yannismarou 17:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- This is mostly discussed in a subarticle now.