Talk:Battle of Hel/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: CPA-5 (talk · contribs) 20:59, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Claim my seat here. CPA-5 (talk) 20:59, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, it's been two weeks; just making sure that you haven't forgotten this one. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:02, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes sorry I'm really busy these days and I struggle to get up to date with my reviews. I will review it as fast as possible. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Just a major issue before I will continue. This sentence shooting down between 46[7] and 53[6] German aircraft. hasn't a citation. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:17, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey Piotrus just let you know that this nomination is here. I'll have a real review this week. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 09:43, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Take your time. That sentence has two citations, one for each number. We could move them to the end of the sentence, but the current way makes it clear which source gives which number. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 12:53, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * including the town of Hel at the Peninsula's tip Decaptalise peninsula.
 * Some 2,800 soldiers of Rear Admiral Włodzimierz Steyer's Link Rear Admiral.
 * as tensions between Poland and Germany mounted Pipe both Germany to Nazi Germany and Poland to the Second Polish Republic.
 * I see you use a lot of metric units - maybe convert them into English units because Americans, Liberians and (some) Britons still use English units.
 * Polish and German guns are measured in standard not Imperial units. It would be rather strange to talk about a Polish or German gun measured in inches... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:34, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes but by WP:UNITS we should always use English units even if that country doesn't use English units we should make it a secondary unit. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:10, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll ask at MILHIST about this because I don't think this is a standard practice. Can you give an example of an article that follows what you recommend and an example of how you'd change a sentence in this article, because maybe we just have a miscommunication here? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:46, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Meters and such (SI) are perfectly acceptable in this context, particularly as the article is not related to anything measured in imperial system. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  03:18, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes but we still should use imperial/US units because it's not a science-related article which means English units should be secondary units. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:UNITS stipulates that conversions should be provided "when appropriate". Both US and British Army websites don't have any issues specifying on their websites only metric values for the calibre of small arms in use, so I'm not sure that we need to make an issue of it here. Factotem (talk) 09:46, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, what I believe is asking for is a change from "comprised one 4 × 152 mm battery" to "comprised one 4 × 152 mm battery", for example.  Harrias  talk 10:07, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No, they absolutely need to be converted. We’re an international encyclopedia, not the US or UK military (and we're also not talking about small arms here, but that’s beside the point). See the second bullet at MOS:CONVERSIONS - you need a good reason to not supply conversions, and “I don’t feel like it” doesn’t cut it. Parsecboy (talk) 10:23, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Seems excessive to me given that even the holdout nations routinely use the metric system as a measurement of calibre, but guideline and consensus do seem to require conversions to be provided per the example given by Harrias. Factotem (talk) 10:51, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Exacly what PB says. Because Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia we shouldn't use only metric units nor only imperial/US unites. In any case they should be converted but if the article is about something from the US, Liberia or the UK the imperial/US units should be the primary and vice versa in the rest of the world. It always should be converted unless the article is about science or some metals which are in general in metric or in imperial/US units. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:48, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * They don't require conversion. Good article criteria: ". Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style or its subpages is not required for good articles." (emphasis original) There is no requirement for compliance with MOS:CONVERSIONS at the GA level.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:00, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm never impressed by the argument that "we shouldn't improve the article because the criteria doesn't require it". Are we trying to create good content or are we trying to do the bare minimum? Parsecboy (talk) 17:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Is it an improvement? When referring to gun designations, the conversion isn't meaningful.  Hawkeye7

(discuss) 18:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You're not a Yank, so I don't know that your perspective is as valid as someone who doesn't use the metric system. The point is, the MoS stipulates that conversions should be used, and the argument that "the GA criteria doesn't include that specific part of the MoS so we don't need to do it" is a weak one. It's not exactly hard to slap a few convert templates in the article. Parsecboy (talk) 18:47, 18 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I see a lot of guns but they're not linked why not?

The rest will follow soon. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:08, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Because the sources I used didn't specifically identify them. And I don't think they have their own articles anyway, through if anyone can try to identify a correct link go ahead. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:34, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Fortified Region was held by Rear Admiral Włodzimierz Steyer Rear Admiral has a wrong link?
 * Fixed, they had the rank of Counter Admiral not Real Admiral. Poland doesn't use the rank of rear admiral (this title doesn't even have a pl wiki interwiki). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:34, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I see a lot of "howevers" maybe remove a couple until you have only one because this article is really short to use more than one?
 * Errr. Ping User:Nihil novi for help with this and other language issues like the ones raised below :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:34, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * See a lot of British vs American words maybe standardise them words like defence, center, defense, theater, armored, counterattacks,
 * Link German Navy.
 * the first day of the invasion (1 September 1939) Delete the date here because in the "Prelude" section you already mentioned that 31 August eve is the evening before the invasion would start.
 * The first air raid occurred at 13:30 hours Delete "hours".
 * he same day at 18:00 hours, targeted ships in the port Same as above.
 * Rear Admiral is overlinked.
 * engaged by two German Kriegsmarine destroyers Unlink Kriegsmarine.
 * Standardise the usages of MM/DD/YYYY to DD/MM/YYYY.
 * village of Wielka Wieś on the Peninsula's very border Decaptalise peninsula.
 * village, Chałupy, situated on the Peninsula itself Same as above.
 * In the night of 12–13 September 1939 --> "In the night of 12/13 September 1939"
 * Link word minelayers at the first use.
 * Merge some paragraphs in the "Aftermath".
 * In the second note "Capitulation negotiations began the night of 30 September – 1 October 1939" --> "Capitulation negotiations began the night of 30 September/1 October 1939"
 * Both last notes need sources to support these claims.
 * Added ref to the third note. But for the fourth, this is my analysis, not OR, just a note on the sources. I think it is allowed for us to say that the sources are unclear or contradictory. Hence this analysis. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:34, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Fixed all minor issues. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:34, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Images
 * What is the status for all images in the US except for the "File:Zatoka Pucka mapa mini.png"?
 * File:Chalupy wyrwa.jpg provides that information, as does File:Dzialo 75 mm Bateria plot. Hel.jpg and File:Hel kapitulacja 01.jpg (through the use of commons:Template:PD-Polish, and the infobox lists the relevant publication date). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:18, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Infobox
 * Looks good to me.

Sources l foreign languages' title. That's it I think. Sorry that it took that long. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:05, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe translate al
 * Ref 1 has no date.
 * Both fixed --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:18, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * What's a GGKEY? And maybe link all those codes.
 * A google book identifier. I've asked what to do with it at Cite Book template help. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:18, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Make a separate section for the books and journals and only page numbers and name of the writer are neccassery in the "References" section.
 * This is an optional way of making citations (more like Harvard style) that I don't like, so I'll pass on that. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:18, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * J.E. Kaufmann's source has a dead link.
 * Mała flota wielka duchem needs a "|language=Polish"
 * Ref 11 looks a little bit chaotic.
 * Fixed all above. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:18, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Some ISBNs have hyphens and others don't maybe standardise them?
 * My reference scripts don't do it, so I am not sure about it, don't want to break the code. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:18, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * How is "www.hel.pl" a reliable source?
 * It's a Polish tourism website. I think it's reliable for articles on tourist monuments, which it is used for (no WP:REDFLAG here, I think). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:18, 2 December 2019 (UTC)


 * "Counter admiral":
 * Our "Rear admiral" article states: "In some European navies (e.g., that of France), and in the Canadian Forces' French rank translations, the rank of rear admiral is known as contre-amiral. In the German Navy the rank is known as Konteradmiral, superior to the flotilla admiral (Commodore in other navies)."
 * We can link to "Counter Admiral", but the Polish rank would be better rendered as "Rear Admiral". We don't leave "Pułkownik" in the original Polish, we render it as "Colonel".  We would not leave the Chinese equivalent of "rear admiral" in a pinyin transcription but render it in English as "rear admiral".
 * The Great Polish-English Dictionary, published in Warsaw, renders "kontradmirał" as "rear admiral".
 * Nihil novi (talk) 07:45, 24 November 2019 (UTC)


 * "Hel Peninsula":
 * "Hel Peninsula" is a formal geographical name and is capitalized in our "Hel Peninsula" article, as are other peninsulas, e.g., "Argolid Peninsula".
 * Where the peninsula's name ("Hel") is attached directly to the word "peninsula", the latter should be capitalized.
 * Nihil novi (talk) 07:59, 24 November 2019 (UTC)


 * In the "Battle" section, paragraph 2, "This effectively eliminated the already heavily outnumbered surface Polish Navy as a fighting force on the Baltic Sea, with only three [Polish] light minelayers remaining operational in the theater."
 * But paragraph 4 states: "After two further Polish ships (the light minelayers Jaskółka and Czapla) at the Hel port of Jastarnia were sunk by the Luftwaffe the following day, and the remaining three minelayers (Czajka, Rybitwa, and Żuraw) were damaged..."
 * That's confusing. How many Polish minelayers, "light" or otherwise, were there?  At what points in time?
 * Nihil novi (talk) 09:43, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Ping User:CPA-5 (I almost forgot about this too). I've added convert templates to the first use of the mm/cm and such. Are we good now? --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 15:59, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay let's finish this with a last comment can round the noughts and remove the error in this sentence comprised one 4 × 152 millimetres (6.0 in) battery, two older 2 × 105 millimetres (4.1 in) batteries, and three batteries with 8 × 75 millimetres (3.0 in) jon Artylerii Przeciwlotniczej had}}? If this is done we can promote it. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:35, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Done.--<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 20:35, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Great now I can promote it. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:54, 9 January 2020 (UTC)