Talk:War crimes in occupied Poland during World War II/GA1

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

Reviewer: MarcusBritish (talk · contribs) 03:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Reviewing this article. Please note this will be my first GA review so I may go at a slower pace than other experienced reviewers. Please raise any concerns with my methods below or on my talk page. Thank you,  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh  {chat} 03:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

General observations

 * There are 17 See also notes. Per WP:Hatnote these need to be place at the top of the sections they occupy, not the bottom. They could be placed direct beneath any Main article hatnote also present in a section. Readers need to be made aware of any potential background reading before they read a section, rather than after. ✅


 * Maintain uniformity per WP:ENGVAR, some words are being spelled in both standard English and U.S. English formats. Will list any concerns here, as they need to be found and corrected.
 * "Labour" vs "labor" – suggest using "labour" throughout. ✅


 * Maintain dmy date format throughout as this appears to be the original standard used (including accessdates etc in citations).

Civilian atrocities during the invasion of Poland (September 1939)

 * "The Germans saw both Poles and Polish Jews as racially inferior to them." – "The Germans" sounds too broad, as if to suggest that all Germans shared this opinion regardless. Would prefer a less absolute clause such as "Many Germans" or a percentage should any sources offer an estimate based on public opinions.
 * ✅. Changed to invading Germans per Christopher Browning. Reference formatting with .  Poeticbent  talk  20:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "The Germans carried out massacres and executions of innocent civilians from the very beginning of war against Poland." – As above, "The Germans"? Does this mean normal German civilians were involved in the killings? Needs narrowing down, e.g. "German military" or "The Wehrmacht", to provide more context regarding who conducted these killings.
 * ✅. Changed to German forces. All citations from James Louis Garvin reformatted with and oclc.  Poeticbent  talk  21:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Also in "The Germans carried out massacres and executions of innocent civilians from the very beginning of war against Poland." – I don't feel we need the "innocent" in there, the term "civilians" alone distinguishes people from being military. Sounds a bit WP:Puffery and kindles emotional sentimentality, which is leaning too far out of neutral wording for my liking. ✅


 * "Civilians were murdered every single day during the Wehrmacht advance across Poland in September 1939." – "every single day" and yet the examples which follow instantly doesn't begin on the 1st of September, but the 2nd. In addition, 6–7, 15–18, 20–28 are also all missing examples. Given that the first sentence which makes the "every" claim is not referenced, it either needs sourcing, or better still rewording, something like "Civilians were murdered during the Wehrmacht advance across Poland throughout September 1939." No need for the hyperbole, the death totals of these crimes are so sufficient in themselves that making a dramatic fuss of dates is somewhat pointed.
 * ✅. Changed to almost each day of the Wehrmacht advance. Datner and other authors put in alphabetical order in the references. Poeticbent  talk  22:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'd prefer this was toned-down even further. There are 30 days in September, examples are provided for only half the month as 1, 6–7, 15–18, 20–28 equals 16 days with no examples of killings given, and that is less than half the month, not "almost" or "nearly" every day by any means. You either need more examples to show massacres on at least 25 of the 30 days of September to satisfy me that it is an accurate claim or simply go with the reworded suggestion I made earlier "Civilians were murdered during the Wehrmacht advance across Poland throughout September 1939." which is more accurate and doesn't present readers with a misleading POV. It is especially important to reword this sentence, because "Records show that civilians were murdered almost each day of the Wehrmacht advance across Poland in September 1939." is an unreferenced claim per se, and so by concluding "almost each day" from 14 days worth of examples amounts to a WP:SYNTH statement, not a fact, which would fail GAN under "2c. it contains no original research."  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh  {chat} 23:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. I admit, I forgot to actually count the days like you did and therefore I had no idea how far off I was. Changed to "in at least 35 different locations." Their dates are already there. Poeticbent  talk  03:11, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The sentence now reads "Records show that only in the first month of the Wehrmacht advance across Poland civilians were murdered in at least 35 different locations." – saying "only in the first month of the Wehrmacht advance across Poland civilians were murdered" implies that Poles were murdered "only in September" and that the killings stopped in October. I gather this was not the case if it continued throughout the war. Could you put something like "Records show that during the first month of the Wehrmacht advance..." so that the killings do not appear to have been limited to just that one month? This allows a smoother transition to the latter section titled "German pacifications of Polish settlements" which covers events after September. Cheers,  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh  {chat} 03:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Poeticbent  talk  05:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "The Polish Army executed a number of them in reprisal, including for possession of military weapons." – please reference.
 * ✅ Poeticbent  talk  05:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "some 20,000 civilian Poles were murdered for revenge" – reworded to "out of revenge" or "in revenge" would sound better. ✅

Joint German and Soviet occupation (1939 until June 1941)

 * Section title, replace "until" with endash – i.e. "Joint German and Soviet occupation (1939 – June 1941)" ✅


 * "Following the invasion of Poland by Germany on 1 September 1939 from the west, on 17 September 1939 their Soviet ally attacked Poland from the east in accordance with the terms of their secret agreement." – Very cluttered sentence and repeat of year unnecessary, I would recommend something like "Following the invasion of Poland on 1 September 1939 by Germany from the west, their Soviet ally attacked from the east on 17 September in accordance with the terms of their secret agreement." ✅


 * their secret agreement – seems like an WP:EASTEREGG. Prefer the sentence ended something like "...in accordance with the terms of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, a secret non-aggression agreement signed in August." to provide a touch more background info. for readers without their having to visit another article. ✅

Soviet war crimes against Poland

 * "Many officers were murdered by the NKVD right after capture." – This is the first instance of "NKVD" in the article and should be wikilinked, there are 3 other uses of "NKVD" further down the article which are wikilinked, and probably don't all need to be. Might be worth expanding this sentence to something like "Many Polish officers were murdered by the People's Commissariat for Internal Affairs (NKVD) right after capture." so that we know what NKVD actually means without having to go to another another article, with the addition of "Polish" we're more clear on their victims.
 * ✅. Changed to NKVD secret police. No need for a calque. Poeticbent  talk  17:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "In Rohatyń, any uniformed men captured, were murdered with their wives and children." – cumbersome, suggest rewording: "Uniformed men captured in Rohatyń were murdered along with their wives and children." ✅
 * ✅. Poeticbent  talk  17:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "including Police force" – just "police" not a proper noun. ✅ Suggest rewording to "the police force" or "police forces".
 * ✅. Poeticbent  talk  17:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "voluntarily laid down their arms after agreeing to the Soviet terms, which cynically and dishonestly allowed them to travel to neutral countries (Rumania and Hungary)." – Sounds a bit editorialised, esp. "cynically and dishonestly". Also, if this was a false offer if neds to be more clear. Suggest rewording, something like, "voluntarily laid down their arms after agreeing to Soviet terms which offered to allow them to travel to neutral Romania and Hungary." – Note spelling change Rumania→Romania, incase this is incorrect.
 * ✅. Poeticbent  talk  17:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "The Russian leadership reneged on their agreement entirely." – "reneged"? Personally I've never seen this clumsy word before, suggest less academic phrasing, e.g. "The Russian leadership broke the agreement entirely." ✅


 * "From the outset, the Soviet secret police began to" – why does the prose switch between using "NKVD" and "Soviet secret police"? Uniform use of one of the other throughout the article would make better reading.
 * ✅, per above. Poeticbent  talk  17:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "All Polish nationals were declared citizens of the Soviet Union subject to Stalinist laws as of 29 November 1939." – "Stalinist laws"? What are these? Which actual legislation became Polish law, as "Stalinist law" sounds like Stalin would make arbitrary rulings. Might it be more accurate to state either "Soviet laws" or whether the 1936 Soviet Constitution became applicable, for example.
 * "All Polish nationals in occupied territories were declared citizens of the Soviet Union subject to its own punitive laws as of 29 November 1939." – The reference provided at http://www.polishresistance-ak.org/28%20Article.htm only states "On 29th November 1939 all inhabitants remaining since 2nd November on territories incorporated into the USSR were forced to accept soviet citizenship." This makes "subject to its own punitive laws" an unverified and potentially speculative statement, particularly the "punitive" claim which states a very specific POV implying that laws were only applied to harm Poles rather than provide a fair legal system. Naturally, this needs further sourcing or removing so as not to be considered original research.
 * ✅. Poeticbent  talk  20:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I looked over the source provided. The only thing mentioned on pages 9–10 as "punitive" is "taxation", with examples of unfair taxes given on page 12, but there is no specific mention of laws; I did a word search and found nothing – laws and taxes aren't the same, so this still needs more precision with regards what the source actually says. I will note, page 11 states, "The study of the Soviet constitution was introduced...", which I suggested might be the case in my original comment above. Might be worth looking into whether it legally applied to Poles also?  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh  {chat} 20:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Please suggest the wording, but the anti-Kulak laws the governed the Soviet Great Terror campaign of political repressions are the ones I had in mind. Poeticbent  talk  21:38, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't want to influence the wording too much, I can only suggest that you change "punitive laws" to "punitive taxes" for now, because that's what the source reference says. If you believe there were some Soviet laws and ideals which influenced how Poles could legally be mistreated, or better I say "persecuted", I suggest looking for new sources on the matter and expanding the section to incorporate it, but only if it's relevant to the context of "Soviet war crimes against Poland" as laws themselves aren't necessarily a "war crime" unless they result in people being killed knowingly and inhumanely. Given that anything claimed here is bound to be challenged, perhaps by Russians or holocaust-deniers, reliable and unbiased sourcing is paramount. Don't always look to Polish historians, where possible find non-Polish third-party sources, although I do appreciate sourcing to avoid controversy is not always an easy task.
 * To be honest, I think the entire paragraph beginning "From the outset, the Soviet secret police began..." to "...subject to its own punitive laws, as of 29 November 1939." needs to moved out of the sub-section it's in and placed directly above the "Katyn massacre of Polish military echelon by the NKVD" sub-heading, because that section currently deals with April and May 1940 initially then jumps back to November 1939, although I will be dealing with the chronological arrangement of the entire article when I make a second reading following all these preliminary changes, as they have changed the article quite a bit for the better, but it is in need of some major restructuring, as there is far too much hopping back-and-forth between dates, so it lacks linear reading, which can be confusing to some readers. We'll worry about that later in the GAN once the article is ready for a second pass.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh  {chat} 22:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I hear you. Let me give it another try. Poeticbent  talk  23:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. Thanks for the tremendous amount of good work there on citations. Everything rearranged. I removed that one bit about punitive laws altogether and added more relevant new info. Poeticbent  talk  17:56, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "In a grim foreshadowing of the near future," – Remove this, it's editorialised and lacks neutrality. Begin section with the non-contentious "An estimated 1.2 to 1.7 million Polish nationals" part which follows. ✅


 * "the second, on 13–15 April 1940 affected 300,000 to 330,000 Poles" – add comma after "1940". ✅


 * "The fourth one took place in June 1941, deporting 200,000 Poles.[89] The fourth wave included a large number of children." – Reword due to repetition, e.g. "The fourth wave took place in June 1941, deporting 200,000 Poles[89] which included a large number of children." ✅


 * "The third wave, in June–July 1940 totaled more than 240,000 victims perhaps 400,000." – So, reword to a straight-forward "The third wave, in June–July 1940, totalled 240,000 to 400,000 victims." instead of beating about the bush with "perhaps". ✅


 * "On top of deporting Polish citizens en masse" – "en masse" is a loanword, remove italics per MOS:FOREIGN. ✅


 * "In the Soviet zone of occupation Polish language was replaced with Russian in official usage." – This is not claimed by the source provided. The source does state that "German became the official language" for its zone, but for the Russian zone only states that "Polish no longer had the status of an official language", there is no mention of replacement by the Russians, only the Germans.
 * Good catch. ✅, with more precise statements from Piotrowski 2007, also above. Poeticbent  talk  20:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "Religious education was forbidden. Schools were forced to serve as tools of communist indoctrination." – Please source.
 * "Soviet censorship was strictly enforced." – Please source.
 * "The Soviets replaced the zloty with the ruble, but gave them blatantly absurd equal value. Businesses were mandated to stay open and sell at pre-war prices, hence allowing Soviet soldiers to buy goods with rubles." – Please source.

Terror in the German zone of occupation

 * General Government is wikilinked about 3 times in this section, retain the first wikilink, remove the others. ✅


 * "During the German invasion of Poland (1939)" – mask the wikilinked year, i.e. "During the German invasion of Poland", as the opening year was established in previous sections. ✅


 * "— teachers, doctors, journalists, and others (both Poles and Jews) —" – please replace emdashes with endashes due to spacing and for uniformity. ✅


 * "Tens of thousands of government officials, landowners, clergy, and members of the intelligentsia — teachers, doctors, journalists" – are all these everyday term wikilinks necessary? Seems like WP:OVERLINKING. If anything, intelligentsia needs linking, it's not a common word. ✅


 * "German army units and paramilitary Selbstschutz ("self-defense") forces composed of Volksdeutsche also participated in executions of civilians." – Please source.


 * "The Roman Catholic Church was suppressed in Wartheland more harshly than elsewhere" – italicise "Wartheland". ✅


 * "Hans Frank's diary shows he planned" – any reason not to wikilink Hans Frank given his role in Poland? ✅


 * "in which between 12,000 and 16,000 Polish civilians were murdered." – Please source.


 * "One hundred and eight of them are regarded as blessed" – shorten to "108 of them..." ✅


 * "The German occupiers launched AB-Aktion in May 1940" link to German AB-Aktion in Poland here, as it's the first instance of "AB-Aktion" and unlink its mention in the next sub-section. ✅


 * Heading "German "pacifications" of Polish towns and villages" – reword to "German pacification of Polish towns and villages" without quotes or pluralisation. ✅


 * "The so-called "pacification" operations sometimes named the anti-partisan actions" – remove "so-called" and scare-quotes, for neutrality, i.e. "The pacification operations". We're not here to question German motives only to relay historical events. ✅


 * "resulting in the death of approximately 20,000 townspeople in less than two years following the attack." – Please source if ref 105 does not verify this claim.


 * "The patients were said to be transferred to another hospital, but evidence showed otherwise." – "were said" by who? Needs attributing. What form does the contradictory evidence take?


 * "This was the first "successful" test of mass murder using gas van poisoning and this "technique" was later used and perfected on many other psychiatric patients in occupied Poland and Germany." – remove scare-quotes from "successful" and "technique", again we're not here to question the procedure only to document its occurrence. ✅


 * "The total number of psychiatric patients murdered by the Nazis in occupied Poland between 1939 and 1945 is estimated to be more than 16,000, with an additional 10,000 patients who died of malnutrition and hunger." – Please source if ref 115 does not verify this claim.


 * "As of November 12, 1939, all Jews over the age of 12" – reword date to DMY format for consistency. ✅


 * "As of November 12, 1939, all Jews over the age of 12, or 14, were forced" – well if all Jews over 12 were forced there's no need to mention over 14s also; verify whether age was 12 or 14, or remove the "or 14" as being extraneous detail, it can't be both.


 * "or to earn more than 500 zloty a month" – "zloty" is already wikilinked in the previous section. ✅


 * "They were legally banned from working in key industries and in government institutions; to bake bread, or to earn more than..." – clumsy wording, suggest, "They were legally banned from working in key industries or government institutions. They were not allowed to bake bread or earn more than..."


 * "The Germans tried to divide the Poles from the Jews using several cruel laws." – Remove "cruel"; editorialising. ✅


 * "Another law was that Poles were forbid from buying from Jewish shops in which if they did they were subject to execution." – Suggest rewording, "By law Poles were forbidden from buying from Jewish shops, those who violated this law were subject to execution."


 * "Maria Brodacka became the first Pole to be killed by the Germans for helping a Jew." – Please source.


 * "The Germans used the incident to kill 100 Jews being held as hostages." – Where did this sentence come from? What incident?


 * "At the start of the war 1,335 Poles were killed for sheltering Jews." – Please replace "at the start of the war" with a specific period stating when these 1,335 Poles were killed. The sentence is sourced, suggest checking that, but such a claim is no good as it stands, even if it is sourced.


 * "The Warsaw Ghetto was the largest of the Jewish ghettos..." – Remove bolding and wikilink to "Jew" from "Jewish". Link to Warsaw Ghetto inline and then remove the See also reference to it found in the section. ✅


 * "established by Nazi Germany in Warsaw, the prewar capital of Poland" – remove the 3 wikilinks, the first two are already present earlier in the page, and "capital" is unnecessary. Suggest changing "prewar" to hyphened "pre-war". ✅


 * "reduced the population of the ghetto from an estimated 445,000" – unlink "ghetto" it's already linked in the previous sentence. ✅


 * "In 1943 the Warsaw Ghetto was the scene of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising." – Wikilink Warsaw Ghetto Uprising inline then remove the See also reference to it found in the section. ✅


 * "By the end of 1942 "over 90%" of the world-class art – as estimated by the German officials – was put into their own possession." – Remove the quotes from "over 90%", reword to "over 90 percent". Quotation marks are not needed as the source of the total is attributed and isn't being quoted like a speech. ✅


 * "Polish language had been banned in Wartheland. Children were forced to learn the basics of German under harsh physical punishment." – Please source both sentences. Remove "Wartheland" wikilink, already exists earlier in section. ✅


 * ""The sole goal of this schooling is to teach them simple arithmetic, nothing above the number 500; writing one's name; and the doctrine, that it is divine law to obey the Germans. I do not think that reading is desirable."" – Incorrectly quoted. Use quote so as to attribute the source. Do not italicise. ✅


 * "In his capacity as Reich Commissioner, Himmler oversaw the kidnapping of Polish children to be Germanized." – First mention of Himmler in article, needs wikilinking. Wikilink Germanized to Germanisation and remove the See also "Germanisation" link found in the following "Forced evictions and roundups of slave labor" sub-section. ✅


 * "Most of them were intended to die during the cultivation of the swamps." – What swamps? What cultivation? This sentence appears out of nowhere suggesting some kind of resettlement programme, presumably to the West Siberian Plain. Regardless, this needs expanding or removing altogether because it explains nothing as it stands. Review the source given to see if it contains clearer details relevant to this section, if not scrub it.


 * Sub-section title "Forced evictions and roundups of slave labor" – change "labor" to "labour" for uniformity with other uses. ✅


 * "In the Wartheland, the Nazi goal was complete Germanization." – Remove "Wartheland" wikilink, already exists earlier in section. ✅


 * "Heinrich Himmler ordered all Jews in the annexed lands to be deported to central Poland." – Just "Himmler", remove wikilink as ealier mention should be wikilinked per my earlier suggestion. ✅


 * "about 100,000 Jews were thus deported" – remove "thus". ✅


 * "Between 1939 and 1945, at least 1.5 million Polish citizens were captured" – "captured" sounds like something you do to enemy troops or people on the run, not civilians. Suggest rewording to a more neutral term such as "detained". ✅


 * "Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs" – wikilink. ✅


 * "During the war, hundreds of Polish men were executed for their relations with German women." – Already tagged, but please source.


 * "Gdańsk/Danzig, existed from September 1939,[149] till the end of war" – reword: "until the end of the war". ✅


 * "There were major transports in August (1,666) and September (1,705)" – Suggest rewording "There were 1,666 major transports in August and 1,705 in September" ✅


 * "This so-called "Polish" phase of Auschwitz lasted until the middle of 1942." – remove "so-called", remove quotes around "Polish". ✅ "middle of 1942" could do with a more specific month, if none available prefer rewording to "mid-1942".


 * "The Auschwitz concentration camp went into operation on 14 June 1940. The first transport of 728 Polish prisoners consisted mostly of schoolchildren, students and soldiers from the overcrowded prison at Tarnów. Within a week another 313 arrived. There were major transports in August (1,666) and September (1,705)." – Each sentence needs sourcing.


 * "The World War II camp system where Poles were detained" – remove "World War II", we already know the period in which they existed. ✅


 * "and with the invasion of Poland became the backbone of German war economy" – remove wikilink, already exists previously. ✅


 * "Andrychy,[156] Antoniew-Sikawa,[157] Augustów,[156] Będzin,[156] Białośliwie,[156] Bielsk Podlaski,[156] Bliżyn,[156] Bobrek,[156] Bogumiłów,[157] Boże Dary,[157] Brusy,[156] Burzenin,[157] Chorzów,[157] Dyle,[157] Gidle,[157] Grajewo,[156] Herbertów,[157] Inowrocław,[156] Janów Lubelski,[157] Kacprowice,[156] Katowice,[157] Kazimierza Wielka,[157] Kazimierz Dolny,[157] Klimontów,[157] Koronowo,[156] Kraków-Podgórze,[157] Kraków-Płaszów,[157] Krychów,[157] Lipusz,[156] łysaków,[157] Miechowice,[157] Mikuszowice,[157] Mircze,[157] Mysłowice,[157] Ornontowice,[157] Nowe,[156] Nowy Sącz,[157] Potulice,[156] Rachanie,[157] Słupia,[157] Sokółka,[156] Starachowice,[157] Swiętochłowice,[156] Tarnogród,[157] Wiśnicz Nowy,[157] Wierzchowiska,[157] Włoszczowa,[156] Wola Gozdowska,[157] Zarki,[156] and Zarudzie.[157]" – Given that only references [156] and [157] are being used for this list, please remove all the refs and create one for each at the end of the list to make it more readable and less crowded. i.e. "Andrychy, Antoniew-Sikawa, Augustów, Będzin, Białośliwie, Bielsk Podlaski, Bliżyn, Bobrek, Bogumiłów, Boże Dary, Brusy, Burzenin, Chorzów, Dyle, Gidle, Grajewo, Herbertów, Inowrocław, Janów Lubelski, Kacprowice, Katowice, Kazimierza Wielka, Kazimierz Dolny, Klimontów, Koronowo, Kraków-Podgórze, Kraków-Płaszów, Krychów, Lipusz, łysaków, Miechowice, Mikuszowice, Mircze, Mysłowice, Ornontowice, Nowe, Nowy Sącz, Potulice, Rachanie, Słupia, Sokółka, Starachowice, Swiętochłowice, Tarnogród, Wiśnicz Nowy, Wierzchowiska, Włoszczowa, Wola Gozdowska, Zarki, and Zarudzie.[156][157]"

German-Soviet war of agression (July 1941 to December 1944)

 * Change section title date from "(July 1941 to December 1944)" to endashed "(July 1941 – December 1944)" and correct the spelling of "aggression". ✅


 * "the Soviet NKVD panicked and executed their prisoners en masse before retreating" – remove loanword "en masse" italics. ✅


 * Subsection title "Soviet executions of civilian prisoners June/July 1941" – change to endashed "Soviet executions of civilian prisoners June–July 1941" ✅


 * "usually in a sea of blood" – remove – editorialising. ✅


 * "advancing Germans in June/July 1941" – endash "June–July 1941". ✅


 * "In eight prewar Polish voivodeships" – reword and wikilink to "In eight pre-war Polish voivodeships" ✅


 * "In eight prewar Polish voivodeships, they included in alphabetical order; Augustów prison:[64] (with 30 bodies);[160] Berezwecz:[64][158] (with 2,000,[160] up to 3,000 dead);[159] Białystok:[64] (with hundreds of victims);[160] Boryslaw,[64] (dozens);[160] Bóbrka:[64] (9–16);[160] Brzeżany:[64] (over 220);[160] Busk:[64] (about 40);[160] Bystrzyca Nadwornianska,[64] Cherven,[161] Ciechanowiec:[64] (around 10);[160] Czerlany: (180 POWs);[160] Czortków,[64][158] Dobromil:[64] (400 murdered);[162] Drohobycz:[64] (up to 1,000);[160] Dubno:[64] (around 525);[160] Grodno:[64] (under 100);[160] Gródek Jagiellonski:[64] (3);[160] Horodenka,[64][160] Jaworów: (32);[160] Kałusz,[64][160] Kamionka Strumilowa:[64] (about 20);[160] Kołomyja,[64][160] Komarno,[64] Krzemieniec:[64] (up to 1,500);[160] Lida,[78][160] Lwów[64][86][159] (over 12,000 murdered in 3 separate prisons);[90][158] Łopatyn:[64] (12);[160] Łuck:[64][78] (up to 4,000 bodies);[160] Mikolajów,[64][160] Minsk: (over 700);[163] Nadworna:[64] (about 80);[160] Oleszyce,[64][160] Oszmiana:[64] (at least 60);[163] Otynia:[64] (300);[160] Pasieczna,[64][160] Pińsk:[64][86] (perhaps hundreds);[160] Przemyślany:[64] (up to 1,000);[160] Równe:[64] (up to 500);[160] Rudki:[64] (200);[160] Sambor:[64][158] (at least 200,[78] up to 720);[160] Sarny:[64] (around 90);[160] Sądowa Wisznia:[64] (about 70);[160] Sieniatycze: (15);[160] Skniłów: (200 POWs);[160] Słonim,[64][160] Stanisławów:[64][158] (about 2,800);[159][160] Stryj:[64] (at least 100);[160] Szczerzec:[64] (about 30);[160] Tarasowski Las: (about 100);[78] Tarnopol:[64] (up to 1,000);[160] Wilejka:[64] (over 700);[159][160] Wilno:[64] (hundreds);[160] Włodzimierz Wołynski,[64][160] Wołkowysk:[64] (7);[160] Wołożyn:[64] (about 100);[160] Wolozynek,[78] Zalesiany,[64] Zaleszczyki,[64][160] Zborów: (around 8);[160] Złoczów:[64][78][158] (up to 750);[160] Zółkiew:[64] (up to 60)[160] and Zydaczów.[64][160]" – very messy and unreadable sea of mostly repeated references. Suggest moving them all to the very end of the list. ✅

The Holocaust in Nazi occupied Poland

 * "At least 152,000 people were killed at Chełmno, according to a German verdict, and up to 340,000 estimated by GKBZNwP." – "GKBZNwP" needs explaining as "Główna Komisja Badania Zbrodni Niemieckich w Polsce" isn't going to mean anything to most readers. Google translates that to "Main Commission for the Investigation of German Crimes in Poland" being under the Polish Ministry of Justice in 1945–49 which makes a lot more sense. Would suggest changing the prose to state "At least 152,000 people were killed at Chełmno, according to a German verdict, and up to 340,000 estimated by the Polish Ministry of Justice during its 1945–47 investigation of German crimes in Poland." The current reference would support that rewording sufficiently.


 * Main article: Auschwitz concentration camp – Remove, already wikilinked earlier in the article. ✅


 * "Beginning in 1942, Auschwitz's prisoner population became much more diverse, as Jews and other "enemies of the state" from all over German-occupied Europe were deported to the camp." – Already tagged, please source.

Ukrainian massacres in occupied Poland

 * "It is estimated that, in this wave of pogroms across 54 cities" – wikilink to "pogroms". ✅


 * "under the command of OUN-UPA and OUN-B partisans" – given their initial mention, please reword to something like, "under the command of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (OUN-UPA) and the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN-B) partisan groups" to give readers a clearer understanding as to what these foreign acronyms mean. ✅


 * "145 Poles plus 19 Ukrainian "collaborators"" – remove scare-quotes around "collaborators". ✅If the quotes are meant to imply that they were falsely accused on being collaborators then please reword the sentence to relay this directly, e.g. "19 Ukrainians accused of being collaborators". Make sure the wording relates to a reliable source before suggesting they were "falsely accused" or anything that might be challenged.


 * "Locations, dates and numbers of victims included (in chronological order): Koszyszcze (15 March 1942), 145 Poles plus 19 Ukrainian "collaborators", 7 Jews and 9 Russians, massacred in the presence of the German police;[180] Antonówska (April, 1942), 9 Poles;[180] Aleksandrówka (September, 1942), 6 Poles;[180] Rozyszcze (November, 1942), 4 Poles;[180] Zalesie (December, 1942), 9 Poles;[180] Jezierce (16 December 1942), 280 Poles;[180] Borszczówka (3 March 1943), 130 Poles including 42 children killed by Ukrainians with the Germans;[181] Pienki, Pendyki Duze & Pendyki Male, three locations (18 March 1943), 180 Poles;[181] Melnytsa (18 March 1943), about 80 Poles, murdered by Ukrainian police with the Germans;[181] Lipniki (25 March 1943), 170 Poles;[181] Huta Majdanska (13 April 1943), 175 Poles;[181] Zabara (22–23 April 1943), 750 Poles;[181][182] Huta Antonowiecka (24 April 1943), around 600 Poles;[182] Klepachiv (5 May 1943), 42 Poles;[182] Katerburg (7–8 May 1943), 28 Poles, 10 Jews and 2 mixed Polish-Ukrainian "collaborator" families;[182] Stsryki (29 May 1943), at least 90 Poles;[182][183] Hurby (2 June 1943), about 250 Poles;[183] Górna Kolonia (22 June 1943), 76 Poles;[183] Rudnia (11 July 1943), about 100 Poles;[183] Gucin (11 July 1943), around 140,[183][184] or 146 Poles;[185] Kalusiv (11 July 1943), 107 Poles;[184] Wolczak (11 July 1943), around 490 Poles;[184] Orzesyn (11 July 1943), 306 Poles;[184] Khryniv (11 July 1943), around 200 Poles;[184][186] Zablocce (11 July 1943), 76 Poles;[186] Mikolajpol (11 July 1943), more than 50 Poles;[186] Jeziorany Szlachecki (11 July 1943), 43 Poles;[186] Krymno (11 July 1943), Poles gathered for church mass murdered;[186] Dymitrivka (22 July 1943), 43 Poles;[186] Ternopil (August, 1943), 43 Poles;[103] Andrzejówka (1 August 1943), 'scores' of Poles murdered;[186] Kisielówka (14 August 1943), 87 Poles;[186] Budy Ossowski (30 August 1943), 205 Poles including 80 children;[187] Czmykos (30 August 1943), 240 Poles;[187] Ternopol (September, 1943), 61 Poles;[103] Beheta (13 September 1943), 20 Poles;[187] Ternopil (October, 1943), 93 Poles;[103] Lusze (16 October 1943), two Polish families;[187] Ternopil (November, 1943), 127 Poles,[103] a large number of nearby settlements destroyed;[187] Stezarzyce (6 December 1943), 23 Poles;[187] Ternopil (December, 1943), 409 Poles;[103] Ternopil (January, 1944), 446 Poles.[103]" – This is all very messy and needs reorganising for readability. Years don't need repeating, sources are repetitive and should be grouped at the end of the list. References 180–187 all come from Ethnic cleansing of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia 1942–1946 – no need to list six sequential pages as separate reference, simple group as "pages 40–45" under one citation. Where it states single-quote 'scores', use double-quote "scores". "killed by Ukrainians with the Germans" – why not just say "killed by Ukrainians and Germans"?
 * End result: "Locations, dates and numbers of victims included (in chronological order): Koszyszcze (15 March 1942), 145 Poles plus 19 Ukrainian "collaborators", 7 Jews and 9 Russians, massacred in the presence of the German police; Antonówska (April), 9 Poles; Aleksandrówka (September), 6 Poles; Rozyszcze (November), 4 Poles; Zalesie (December), 9 Poles; Jezierce (16 December), 280 Poles; Borszczówka (3 March 1943), 130 Poles including 42 children killed by Ukrainians and Germans; Pienki, Pendyki Duze & Pendyki Male, three locations (18 March), 180 Poles; Melnytsa (18 March), about 80 Poles, murdered by Ukrainian police with the Germans; Lipniki (25 March), 170 Poles; Huta Majdanska (13 April), 175 Poles; Zabara (22–23 April), 750 Poles; Huta Antonowiecka (24 April), around 600 Poles; Klepachiv (5 May), 42 Poles; Katerburg (7–8 May), 28 Poles, 10 Jews and 2 mixed Polish-Ukrainian "collaborator" families; Stsryki (29 May), at least 90 Poles; Hurby (2 June), about 250 Poles; Górna Kolonia (22 June), 76 Poles; Rudnia (11 July), about 100 Poles; Gucin (11 July), around 140, or 146 Poles; Kalusiv (11 July), 107 Poles; Wolczak (11 July), around 490 Poles; Orzesyn (11 July), 306 Poles; Khryniv (11 July), around 200 Poles; Zablocce (11 July), 76 Poles; Mikolajpol (11 July), more than 50 Poles; Jeziorany Szlachecki (11 July), 43 Poles; Krymno (11 July), Poles gathered for church mass murdered; Dymitrivka (22 July), 43 Poles; Ternopil (August), 43 Poles; Andrzejówka (1 August), "scores" of Poles murdered; Kisielówka (14 August), 87 Poles; Budy Ossowski (30 August), 205 Poles including 80 children; Czmykos (30 August), 240 Poles; Ternopol (September), 61 Poles; Beheta (13 September), 20 Poles; Ternopil (October), 93 Poles; Lusze (16 October), two Polish families; Ternopil (November), 127 Poles,[103] a large number of nearby settlements destroyed; Stezarzyce (6 December), 23 Poles; Ternopil (December), 409 Poles;[103] Ternopil (January 1944), 446 Poles."[103][180] ✅


 * "Other retaliatory actions included the Jedwabne pogrom (or Jedwabne massacre)" – wikilink to Jedwabne pogrom needed. ✅


 * "but inspired by the Germans."." – Remove one of the periods ending the quote or sentence. ✅

German massacres during the Soviet counter-offensive

 * "By 1943, it was common for the population to be subjected to mass murder" – I don't find the wording of this sentence clear. Mass murders were taking place all the time between 1939 and 1945, all we've got here is a pattern not a "year that went according to plan" for the Germans. I don't know what the source provided says, but I'm sure a more accurate observation could be expressed here, such as "More massacres of the population took place in 1943 than any other year during the war", for example. Or better yet scrap the sentence, we're not writing a record book here and I think this sentence gives undue attention to a year's worth of killings that were literally non-stop over the years before and after.


 * "following the order by Hitler to raze the city and "turn it into a lake"" – the wikilink is spread over too many words. Just the "order by Hitler" bit should need the wikilink. ✅


 * "Other similar massacres took place in the areas of Śródmieście (City Centre), Old Town, Marymont, and Ochota districts. In Ochota district, civilian killings, rapes, and looting were conducted by the members of Russian collaborators from S.S. Sturmbrigade R.O.N.A. Until the end of the September 1944, Polish resistance fighters were not considered by Germans as combatants and were summarily executed when captured. After the fall of the Old Town, during the beginning of September, the remaining 7,000 seriously wounded hospital patients were executed or burnt alive, often with the medical staff who cared for them. Similar atrocities took place later in the Czerniaków district. A number of captured insurgents were hanged or otherwise executed after the fall of Powiśle and Mokotów districts as well." – Already tagged, please source all claims within this paragraph.


 * "Timeline of civilian massacres during the Warsaw Uprising" list – remove the "1944" year from each date, it has already been established. Use a two-step list to group massacres which occurred on the same dates instead of repeating dates. ✅


 * Remove Warsaw Uprising and Wola massacre from See also list in this section, they are already wikilinked in prose. ✅


 * "US air force" – add periods to make "U.S. air force". ✅

The end of German rule and the return of the Soviet terror (January 1945)

 * "With the return of the Soviets, the killings and deportations started again." – This sentence doesn't explain where the Soviets went and why they came back. Needs developing a little to give a little background regarding the war. Suggest a paragraph summarising briefly how Operation Barbarossa led to the Soviets leaving Poland in 1941, as well as Operation Bagration which marked their return in 1944.


 * "Stalin turned his attention to the AK (Home Army)" – If AK is only getting one mention and "Home Army" thereafter, it might be better to use "Armia Krajowa" in full and wikilinked. ✅


 * "Approximately 60,000 soldiers of the AK had been arrested by the NKVD." – Previous sub-section used "Home Army" after initial mention of AK. Either use "AK" or "Home Army" consistently, but not both. NKVD wikilink not needed. ✅


 * "Possibly, over 20,000 people died in communist prisons" – "Possibly" invokes doubt. Verify sources, use wording such as "It is estimated" or similar as an alternative. ✅


 * "During World War II, Polish Jews suffered the worst percentage loss of human life compared to all other nationalities" – It could be debated that "Polish Jew" isn't a nationality per se, "Polish" is a nationality "Jew" is the religion they follow, "Polish Jew" is more precisely an ethnicity. Prefer something clearer like, "During World War II, Jews in Poland suffered the worst percentage loss of life compared to all other national and ethnic groups" – the claim also needs sourcing. Would be better still to have the estimated loss percentage quoted. I also think this sentence doesn't belong in this "end of German rule" section and should be moved to the "Estimated casualties of World War II and its aftermath" section below, and placed directly before the sentence which reads, "The vast majority were civilians. The daily average loss in Polish lives was 2,800." Along with the changes I've already suggested for that section, it would make better reading.
 * End result: " During World War II, Polish Jews suffered the worst percentage loss of human life compared to all other nationalities; nevertheless, t There are rare instances of Jewish pro-Soviet groups being accused of perpetrating atrocities also. The most infamous were the massacres at Koniuchy in 1944, and Naliboki in 1943 committed by forest partisans." here and "During World War II, Jews in Poland suffered the worst percentage loss of life compared to all other national and ethnic groups. The vast majority were civilians." in the section below. ✅

Estimated casualties of World War II and its aftermath

 * "Poland is now estimated to have lost between 4.9 and 5.7 million citizens at the hands of the Germans. Between 150,000 and 1 million more died at the hands of the Soviets. In total, about 6 million Polish citizens died." – sentence is too aggressive sounding, reword to something more neutral like, "Approximately 6 million Polish citizens died between 1939 and 1945; an estimated 4.9 to 5.7 million were killed by German forces and 150,000 to 1 million by Soviet forces." We don't need all this broad-spectrum "at the hands of" nonsense, and should use terms that recognise the deaths as being government-sanctioned killings than attributing full national blame even at a civilian level, bearing in mind that Hitler massacred Germans and Stalin massacred Russians just as relentlessly as they massacred foreign Poles and Jews. ✅


 * "The daily average loss in Polish lives was 2,800." – Reads as too sentimental. Something neutral sounding like, "On average, 2,800 Polish citizens died per day during its occupation." ✅


 * "with Doctors (45%)" – lower-case "doctors", not a proper noun. ✅

Referencing

 * I was going to suggest a thorough cleanup of referencing later, but now that a harvard standard has been implemented, all inline references need to be switched to the sfn format for uniformity.
 * Sorry,, there's no such rule regarding sfn uniformity anywhere in Wikipedia, just the opposite according to what I know. Trying to squeeze some 225 inline citations (as of now) to sfn shorthands would turn referencing in this article into virtual hell on wheels. Please take it back. Poeticbent  <span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#FFFFFF;font-weight:bold;background:#FF88AF;border:1px solid #DF2929;padding:0.0em 0.2em;">talk  23:21, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, can't do, WP:CITEVAR contains detailed "To be avoided" guidelines, specifically: "Switching between major citation styles, e.g., switching between parenthetical and tags" is discouraged. Move relevant perhaps is "Imposing one style on an article with incompatible citation styles (e.g., some of the citations in footnotes and others as parenthetical references): an improvement because it makes the formatting consistent" is "Generally considered helpful". "Sea of blue" doesn't apply to the referencing section at it is "outside" of the main prose at the bottom of the page and is used in many lengthy featured articles to greater extend than this article. 225 is nothing compared to some articles, Barack Obama has 348 refs World War II has 378 harv-format refs and looks great, it's a GA. "Sea of blue" is about WP:OVERLINKING wikilinks, which I've trimmed in this article by removing excessive and duplicate see also and wikilinks.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh  {chat} 23:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You're asking for something that is clearly against policy . Quote: Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change. — Similar to all tertiary literature written by real historians, we use shortened footnotes only where it makes sense, i.e. when the Google book reference is used dozens of times with only the page numbers changing or switching back and forth repetitiously. No webpage would ever need that, because each http source contains a single url every time. Unlike real books, webpages don't have pages. Only in Google Books (and in PDF) different book pages exist under the same weblink. All articles I've ever run into in Wikipedia use for multiple web citations (sanctus dictum in millions of articles) and only occasionally  for the books in Google (to avoid clutter). The style used at Barack Obama which is a superbly written (and a Featured Article) is a perfect example of what I mean. Would you like perhaps to seek a second opinion? This is getting serious enough to justify more community feedback.  Poeticbent  <span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#FFFFFF;font-weight:bold;background:#FF88AF;border:1px solid #DF2929;padding:0.0em 0.2em;">talk  01:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No I'm not. This is a GAN, therefore it's not a "personal" request, it's a requirement to bring the article up to standards, not a fly-by edit done on a whim. Many articles being developed for A-class, GA or FA undergo a complete citation overhaul, and I ask no less of this article. There's no excuse for half the refs to be harv and half to be another style. Consensus isn't required, it was a messy article needing a fair amount of work. Policy only advises against changing a citation where an article is stable and not in need of a change. In this case the article is undergoing many changes and you've already set in motion applying sfn to half the refs, so it makes sense to complete the job than leave it only half done. Sorry, but your interpretation of policy isn't taking "bold" editing into account to allow for the article to be developed to a higher standard. No one is going to complain if the end result is a GA grade, improved stability and clearer referencing. WP:IAR applies, as we're improving the content by applying better referencing, no one can argue against that. As I said, look at World War II, it's completely stable with harv-referencing, dozens of sources and attracts many more editors and hits than this page receives. Waiting for consensus is only going to slow down this GAN unnecessarily, I don't see any need.. if you've already changed half the refs to sfn so seeking consensus to change the rest is a pointless exercise. Let's just get the rest done and move on. Trust me, by the time it's done the article will look considerably better! The WP:CITEVAR guideline states to maintain "consistency" not to interchange "when it makes sense" does it not?  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh  {chat} 01:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Why bring WP:CITEVAR into our discussion if it doesn't suit the point you're trying to make; I wouldn’t bother quoting it. At Barack Obama the lack of 'sfn' templates means only "no clicking made available to you", but the idea (and the spirit of 'sfn' shortcuts for book pages and book pages only) stays exactly the same all the way. Go, check it out. In World War II (which is not a Feature Article) every other 'sfn' has a long 'ps=' comment to make it digestible. Apparently you do like it the way it is, but I don't, because many references are used only once and don't need a double-click to be checked. It is cumbersome and unnecessarily laborious. Webpages don't have page numbers. What's the point of all this? Poeticbent  <span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#FFFFFF;font-weight:bold;background:#FF88AF;border:1px solid #DF2929;padding:0.0em 0.2em;">talk  02:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * By my count there are 180 closing tags. But I can already see on the ref list that there are tons of duplicates, e.g. Iwo Pogonowski Jews in Poland 3 times, Malcher, G.C. (1993) Blank Pages 9 times!, Tadeusz Piotrowski, Poland's Holocaust 6 times, Mikolaj Terles Ethnic cleansing of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia 4 times, Jozef Garlinski Poland in the Second World War 4 times, Tadeusz Cyprian & Jerzy Sawicki (1961), Nazi Rule in Poland 1939–1945 5 times. Those are just a few examples. So technically, there are not even 225 references, but less that 200, only they have been repeatedly entered as new ref=name entries where a simple sfn only need list each of these titles once and trim out a ton of reference bloat, by as much as 25% I expect. That in itself is justification to get them all converted to sfn.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh  {chat} 02:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:CITEVAR does suit the point I'm trying to make, because it details good reason to make references consistent. World War II is a Good Article, the same standard we're aiming for here, and therefore a better example. And why assume I'm the one who likes sfn when you made the first edits to change references to sfn, not I? I've never used sfn, in fact. I simply recommend you complete the job or don't use it at all and go back to all refs.. use one format or the other but not both. FYI there are various citation templates, some designed for citing websites which can be incorporated into harv with ease. The point? – The point is this is a GAN review and I'm trying my best to review this article fairly. I have not made any over-demanding requests and anything I request is backed with policy or MOS guidelines. As you've said clearly "I don't like it", but WP:IJDLI isn't an excuse not to, I never stated a preference for any particular style, only that you maintain one standard or another per citation policy. The point being there's no reasonable excuse not to. If it's too much work for you, just say so, I'm quite happy to do it myself.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh  {chat} 02:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * We should have discussed this earlier. — My intention was to use the 'sfn' templates consistently per recommendation (just like you say), but for books of history only because all cited books of history need to be cited page by page. Your initial comments said nothing about referencing, but given more time, I would have turned Pogonowski, Malcher, Piotrowski, Terles etc. into 'sfn' citations because that is what my intention was.  I read history books every day and that is what I'm used to. Citations in books from other books which are used repetitiously have authors and page numbers in 'Notes' and their full book-by-book descriptions in 'Bibliography'. However, none of the books I read  use shortened 'sfn' footnotes when using them would be meaningless. A note leading to a single source (i.e. a website) is more than enough. Look at the way 'sfn' template is set up:   . A page number? A year? Obviously, this a book template, meant to be used for books as references, not for webpages! A webpage would never work like this, because it isn't being flipped. But why am I saying all this over and over again? It's useless.  Poeticbent  <span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#FFFFFF;font-weight:bold;background:#FF88AF;border:1px solid #DF2929;padding:0.0em 0.2em;">talk  08:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Look, I'm not here to debate the matter. WP:CITEVAR is a part of WP:REF guidelines, and that falls under WP:FNNR which is a requirement under GA criteria. I'm here to do only one thing: review the article against that criteria. You can either follow it or not, I can't force you, I can only "pass" or "fail" the article against that criteria which I didn't write, I only aim to follow it closely for the good of the article – not for you or me, just the article: it gets the award, you get the credit, I get the job done. I am well aware that sfn is not for webpages, I never said otherwise, you tried to put those words in my mouth. Regardless, please see cite web and be aware that it can take a <tt>ref=harv</tt> parameter to allow anchoring, as well as the name of the web author and the year it was published, page no. isn't required. FYI I have dozens of history books also, 4 bookcases packed with them. Historians do use short form notes, as well as "ibid". You can't rightly compare printed media with online media and expect them to be the same.. online we can offer advantages, such as clickable links to refs. We don't use "ibid" because we're reader friendly, not focused on scholars only. Any reliable source found online should normally have an author and publication date, to allow for more accurate referencing. Regardless, no one said use "sfn" for webpages, you asserted that.. convert all the cited books to "sfn", make the cited webpages uniform at least, preferably all using a cite web template instead of manually identified in square brackets which leads to messy refs. there's no excuse for poor referencing when it's so easy to do.
 * I believe you once said, "you know how hard it is to get someone like MarcusBritish commit themselves to a difficult subject". You knew wrong. I don't know how you pre-judged "someone like" me, but I have no problem with the subject or any level of commitment required, I only start to have problems when it comes to editors misinterpreting my comments or using guidelines to their own advantage or cutting corners and avoiding standards altogether. This may be my first GA review, but I'm confident enough in what I'm doing and I'm aware of what needs to be done – in short, I'm here to help you not resist you. A little more faith on your part would go a long way, as well a less defensive attitude – the purpose of this GAN is to improve the article, not to create a stressful debate over what bloody referencing style to use! Correct? The only thing I see as "useless" is you treating me as though I don't know what I'm talking about, when clearly I do. Books, journals, magazines, printed sources → cite book or citation with inline an sfn, webpages can use inline <tt> </tt> but try to use <tt> </tt> as often as possible so that there are no duplicate listings in the references section. The key here is "consistency" because it makes the article more professional. Is that clear enough now?  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh  {chat} 11:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The "ibid" links need removing per WP:IBID, they are discouraged rather than forbidden, but if we're aiming for GA-standard here then discouraged practices should be considered a "no go" for the sake of meeting high standards.


 * All titles need converting to an appropriate Citation template such as cite book to produce a uniform standard of referencing.


 * All titles need to be alphabetically ordered by Surname then by Year in the case of multiple publications by an author. The a-b-c method can be used in the sfn template for accurate citing.


 * All references must be uniform and listed in the same format, each must include as a minimum standard:
 * author surname, author firstname. (year of publication). Title of publication. Location: Publisher. ISBN where available.


 * Full chapter titles are not required, only the chapter numbers, ndashed in the case of multiple chapters.


 * Pages numbers should not be given in the references list, as they come from the inline citation for the Footnotes section to display.


 * Any listed titles which have not been used for sourcing may be moved into a "Further reading" section for further review.


 * Please add the pl icon after any sources written in Polish which are not translated. Same goes for any other non-English titles.


 * Maintain dmy date format for accessdates, etc when adding dates to citations.

Outside opinion on referencing dispute by AmericanLemming
I've read through the above discussion, and I'm convinced that you two know a lot more about Wikipedia referencing styles than I do. There seems to be some misunderstanding and ill-will between you two, a fact which I find regrettable. I've collaborated heavily with Poeticbent before on Treblinka extermination camp, but I don't want to take their side just because of that. Anyway, if I understand what you are proposing with referencing, MarcusBritish, you want all book references in Harvard style with shortened footnotes and cite book and all website references to have the cite web template. Please correct me if my understanding is not accurate.

In summary, if Poeticbent doesn't want to change everything to cite book and cite web and shortened footnotes for the books because of the large amount of work required and you, MarcusBritish, are demanding that Poeticbent do so as an absolutely necessary component of promoting this article to GA status, I would be more than happy to assist Poeticbent in making the required changes. As soon as I understand what they are, of course. :) AmericanLemming (talk) 19:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Firstly and most importantly, I feel no ill will towards Poeticbent whatsoever, I've read his opinions although I may disagree with them and have stated my reasons why with no disrespect intended. I do appreciate that there are a lot of refs to make uniform. I will also reiterate my original "there is no rush" remark as well that I will help out if needs be to complete the task. I am making no absolute demands, only requesting that to meet GA criteria the refs be made consistent, and if that means going with "cite book" and "cite web" and "sfn" templates to achieve this goal, so be it. The result will be worth the effort. If you wish to aid in this venture, you are more than welcome. If, on the other hand, he wishes to revert back to the plainer inline <tt>&lt;ref&gt;</tt> tags format to retain consistency, it is an option. Thanks for your input and support,  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh  {chat} 09:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm seriously considering withdrawing my nomination right now because you don't seem to know what you're doing,. Uniformity issue the way you describe it ("sfn" or else!) is the most extreme proposal I've ever encountered personally. — No bad feelings, whatsoever! We all require time to learn how to accept the viewpoints of others and this is only a small part of the long and gradual process. Please read What the Good article criteria are not before taking up another review. In the section "Mistakes to avoid" it is suggested that you stop: "Requiring the use (or non-use) of citation templates" (as well as) "Requiring consistently formatted, complete bibliographic citations" because "If you are able to figure out what the source is, that's a good enough citation for GA" [emphasis mine]. Another mistake to avoid is "Demanding compliance with your favorite MoS pages", but that's a different ball-game. — Dear, the inflamatory request made here is about the removal of all   tags in the article if   tags are present... This is not about  tags. Please see Auschwitz for the most extreme example of what this means. Poeticbent <span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#FFFFFF;font-weight:bold;background:#FF88AF;border:1px solid #DF2929;padding:0.0em 0.2em;">talk  18:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for What the Good article criteria are not, from which I shall quote from (2) Factually accurate and verifiable: "Any system that allows the reader to connect a specific sentence with a specific citation is an acceptable inline citation method: editors may choose between <tt>&lt;ref&gt;</tt> tags or author-date parenthetical citations or any other system that is clear to the reader. However, one system should be used consistently for inline citations." – This sums up precisely what I've requested above, and therefore your suggested reading backs me up 100%, chapter, line and verse. It supports WP:CITEVAR, and stresses the importance of uniform referencing. I won't be swayed by an essay which does not represent consensus that then contradicts itself with the part you cherry-picked. MOS guidelines, WP:REF and consensus carry far greater weight in this matter, you can't expect me to cast those aside to suit your personal preference stated as a matter-of-fact "I don't like 'sfn' methods" remark.
 * "I'm seriously considering withdrawing my nomination right now because you don't seem to know what you're doing" – If I don't know what I'm doing, why has it taken you 4 days to assume this, based on only one comment out of the dozens I have made on this article? In short, you have an indifference towards recommended citation styles, and rather than admit to being wrong you're playing the victim as though some malicious request had been made against you personally. I refute that, and will also state openly right now that I will not be bullied by anyone with their personal views of me, nor will I stand back as you try to find a GA reviewer who supports your POV by denominating then renominating in the near future, that would be bad faith behaviour, and I caution you against it.
 * "Another mistake to avoid is "Demanding compliance with your favorite MoS pages" – I do not believe I have any "favourite MOS pages", I'm not in the habit of cherry-picking, I follow the entire MOS as well as WP:MILMOS and several other project MOS's as closely as possible, often strictly. I would advise you don't make unfounded accusations in future, it's bad for business to be rude about people.
 * "No bad feelings, whatsoever!" – Given the two quotes noted above, I doubt your sincerity. There is an intense amount of anti-MOS sentimentality being expressed by you, slowly becoming personal attacks on my reviewing abilities. I'll have you know that I've conducted Peer Reviews and A-class reviews as well as creating a few GAs myself in the past, as there is not much difference between them as they are generally all reviewed against the same criteria. Only the end result differs. I know exactly what I'm doing, and it is you who is arguing that the criteria is wrong, not I.
 * Auschwitz is an example of excellent referencing. Neat, organised, uniform. Why anyone would not want to reach this level of professionalism alludes me. A GA too! Seems there is something to be said for consistent referencing.
 * Conclusion: The GA criteria cannot be ignored to suit one man, so either drop the stick and move on, or tuck your tail between your legs and denominate all you like, my request stands, such an action would reflect on you badly in the long run for wasting editor time by making pointed retractions in an attempt to avoid a competent GAN request. I don't have "favourite editors" to whom I give leeway either, as standards would suffer nor will I be lead into false reasoning nor discouraged through over-personal and subjective remarks. I invested my time diligently by offering you a fair, impartial and highly detailed review – the only review any bugger was willing to give you in ~3 months, consider yourself lucky – you can either respect that or continue to belittle my hours of effort with this poor show of editor conduct. I have no feelings to spare on the matter. This reviewer will not be provoked because you fail to accept what the criteria covers and manipulative words like "extreme" don't phase me.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh  {chat} 20:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

A call for a toning down of the rhetoric
MarcusBritish, I understand that you feel Poeticbent has insulted your ability as a reviewer, but, at the same time, you seem to be bordering on incivility here. I think that Poeticbent has said some things in this discussion that were uncalled for, but I believe that same goes for you. The rhetoric seems to be escalating and one perceived insult by one of you leads to another. I would please ask both of you to tone down the rhetoric and respectfully state your differences without resorting to such personal attacks such as "you don't seem to know what you're doing" from Poeticbent and "I doubt your sincerity" from MarcusBritish. Also, MarcusBritish, with your background in Peer Review and A-class reviews, you may be asking too much in your GA review here. I don't know, since I'm not that experienced in GA reviews, but I would ask that you consider the possibility that you might be wrong in this matter. And the same goes for you, Poeticbent: you might be the one at fault. Both of you are not assuming good faith, and both of you are taking perceived insults personally. It might be good for the two of you to leave the matter alone for a couple of days so that you can calm down.
 * In summary, I believe both of you to be competent, establish, upstanding members of the Wikipedia editor community who have the best interests of the project at heart and who are here to improve the encyclopedia. You both know what you're doing, and you've both been here a while. With the continuing escalation of the rhetoric on the referencing dispute, I am going to ask for outside input immediately, and I would ask you both to respect the consensus that is reached. Thank you. AmericanLemming (talk) 23:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I have now requested for mediation on the GA talk page, the Military History talk page, and the Help desk. I have also posted on each of your talk pages, requesting that you remain civil. Please, please, please; I know you two are better than this! Calm down, perhaps apologize for some of what's been said, admit that you might be wrong, don't take it personally, wait for consensus to be reached; my list of recommendations goes on and on. AmericanLemming (talk) 00:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The reviewer has decided to fail the article, so there is no longer any need for mediation; the nominator and the reviewer will go their separate ways. AmericanLemming (talk) 02:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposal for other editors to weigh in

 * Well, here's a proposal for now: We ask for some outside advice on the referencing issue (through Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history, or even just asking some uninvolved Military History editors to take a look), and in the meantime you two continue to work on the prose issues, of which there are a fair number remaining, it seems. In my opinion, those are in some ways more significant hurdles to achieving GA status than the referencing. Even if we come to the consensus that the references are fine as they are, the prose still needs to be improved a fair amount, I think. Additionally, the lead is currently not an adequate summary of the body, meaning that that needs to be fixed for sure before this article is promoted to GA status.


 * It may take some time to come to consensus on the referencing issue (or to get some uninvolved editors to weigh in on the issue), but that's okay, seeing as there is enough else that needs to be improved with the article, with unresolved prose issues, the inadequate summary given in the lead, and all the unreferenced statements here and there. I'm sorry that I can't meditate this dispute myself, but I don't feel comfortable enough with referencing on Wikipedia or the WP:CITE guidelines to take sides. Fair enough? AmericanLemming (talk) 20:12, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The lead comes last in my reviewing order, after the prose, as it only aims to adequately summarise the content with nothing unique. It's not important yet, the prose and the referencing is far more important to begin with. By my method hurdles don't just get jumped once, but repeated in laps, with each lap brining you closer to the finish. I'm already aware that the lead here is too short, but we need to wait until the prose is finished being developed before addressing it.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh  {chat} 20:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with that. I think the MoS says you're supposed to make changes in the body before you make changes in the lead anyway (so that you don't have info in the lead that isn't in the body). I was just suggesting leaving the referencing alone for now because there's still work to be done on other issues. There's no need to let the referencing dispute stall the review; there are plenty of other things that need to be addressed as well. If it's alright with you two, I will post a message asking for outside input on the referencing issue at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history in the next 24 hours. immediately. From there we will achieve consensus, and if consensus is that radical changes need to be made to the article's referencing, I will help put in the work necessary to make those changes. AmericanLemming (talk) 23:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The referencing as it is currently used in the article is unacceptable, IMO. Personally I despise harv and sfn formats and refuse to use them; they cannot be required by a reviewer, nor can any other particular format. What a reviewer can require, however, is that the cites and bibliography be in a standardized and consistent format, which these are not. I see needless duplication, redundant information, and disparate treatment of various sources. Whatever format y'all choose to follow, I strongly suggest that all sources be listed in the bibliography, regardless of how often they're used, and the actual cites be reduced to a minimum like author, page # or something similar. This helps to reduce the amount of typing required and still allows an interested reader to track down the cited info. Don't make any extra work for yourselves if you can help it, that's my motto. I'll put this page on my watchlist in case anyone has some questions or comments.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Getting in after the close here, but I agree with Sturmvogel (though I'm not as opposed to the harv and sfn formats: they work quite well when all the references cited have simple publishing details). I'd also question the reliability of some of the sources being cited, and especially the wartime publications. I also regard Marcus' closing statement as being pretty poor form: it's perfectly OK to disagree with reviewers, and it not acceptable to fail an article on such grounds. Marcus, I know that you're either going to ignore more or, more likely, abuse me for this, but you really need to stop acting like a jerk. It's getting really old really quickly and you are not on a good path. Nick-D (talk) 07:30, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The matter is already "water under the bridge" and I couldn't care less. If everyone wants to moan about the close let them do so on their own time, not mine. Just bear in mind.. if this GAN is so bloody important, why was it passed over by dozens of reviewers since October 2013? In short, you're only being hypocrites, like a kid crying over an old broken toy he never even played with. The GAN was failed not only because it will never pass if the nominee is unwilling to apply standards thus I refuse to waste more time on it, but also because I refuse to be treated like shit by a malevolent editor – I owe no one any favours. You should show more regret in losing a potential GA reviewer,, because the incomplete in-depth review above is nothing short of fucking amazing, even if I say so myself.  MilHist lost out and the only thing you can do is side with the man who shot the messenger, Nick? You have an annoying habit of jumping to the wrong conclusions, but I'll grant you one thing, at least you're consistent in your insular disdain.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh  {chat} 09:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

asked me to comment here because there's a dispute about CITEVAR. The above is too much to read, but in brief the GA criteria do not require compliance with WP:CITE. The writer can use whatever citation system she wants within reason, and citation consistency is not a GA requirement. What the Good article criteria are not includes under "mistakes to avoid" by reviewers: "Requiring consistently formatted, complete bibliographic citations. (If you are able to figure out what the source is, that's a good enough citation for GA.)" SlimVirgin (talk) 02:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I just reopened the review and passed the article as a GAN.  is exactly correct on citations and the standards.  In addition, the reviewer violated WP:CITEVAR - just because he prefers , he is not allowed to impose his preference on others.   GregJackP   Boomer!   02:47, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "just because he prefers, he is not allowed to impose his preference on others" – This reviewer has never personally used sfn in articles, he generally uses &lt;ref> tags and therefore has no preference for short form. The first use of "sfn" was made by Poeticbent here his edit summary even states "introduced sfn template". Using WP:CITEVAR to request that all book references be converted to the same referencing style is not a violation by any stretch of the imagination, "violation" being an over-stated remark as GACR cannot be "violated" per se. In fact, if anyone can be accused of changing the standing format to another against consensus, resulting in a mixed and inconsistent format, it's Poeticbent. This made my routine request that he finish the job quite justified, as WP:WGN is an essay not worthy of consideration over MOS, whereas WP:CITEVAR is a consensus-based guideline, and I would have expected someone of Poeticbent's intelligence to want to attain professional standards of referencing. I was wrong, and so the article remains ref-soup, a mix of "sfn", "ref", "cite" and manually listed sources. Quite ugly.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh  {chat} 05:55, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Assessment
Note that the above "second review" was passed arbitrarily and that the article itself has not even been thoroughly checked. There are examples of poor grammar, original research, messy referencing, non-neutral sourcing, and the lead is abysmal. has made an uninformed and incompetent "assessment" as a favour to the nominee, not a sound review based on guidelines. There is no evidence to suggest that this GA was passed based on WP:GACR, nor that they understand that this article fails to meet MOS:LAYOUT requirements. This was a petty "pass" by an editor who was acting in bad faith for the sake of melodrama, making an uninformed assessment. The nominee calls GAR a "Russian Roulette" and GregJackP has proved to be the bullet that kills the process. This review takes the piss by passing a low-quality article without a proper review ever having taken place other than by me. And my review is a God-send compared to Greg's lack of review notes. I hope his "friend" is happy with this dysfunctional article, as it is nothing short of a mess. I could write a better article in my sleep.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh  {chat} 03:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * My, my. A little prissy, aren't we?  I don't know the original editor, and if you could write a better article in my sleep, why haven't you done so?  Does this article need work to go to A-class or FA status?  Sure.  But that's not the standard for a GA.  In my opinion, this article meets GA.  Of course, I have more experience in that area (the first article I created met GA criteria in a little over 60 days).  If you don't like that, too bad.   GregJackP   Boomer!   03:59, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I have three GAs you addlepated twit, and several other articles in sandbox aimed at GA. Experience be damned, any half-wit can read criteria and tick a few boxes, but only a fool like yourself can pick an essay to override a MOS guideline. That's like smoking weed because a politician "thinks it should be legal" even if the law states it is illegal. WP:REF is a GA-standard, and therefore so is WP:CITEVAR. So far you have ignored that fact, WP:WGN isn't a GACR option. Too bad you don't know what you're doing.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh  {chat} 04:10, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Wow! Three whole GAs?  I'm impressed, especially since I have three FAs, one class-A, and thirteen GAs.  Let me know when you do something besides create lists.   GregJackP   Boomer!   04:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh, competition time is it? Perhaps you made so many GAs because you don't have a life. If lists lack merit you stand alone in that opinion, this article is little more than a list of massacres and Polish dead, you passed it, not I. Let me know when you write something that the world is actually interested in instead of aimed at American audiences only.. they don't appear to be getting many hits. All you're doing is paraphrasing legal cases.. doesn't take any real initiative. And if those GAs were assessed on the same principles you follow, they probably aren't GAs at all, simply trash for your "scoreboard".  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh  {chat} 04:29, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Yawn. Perhaps you made so many GAs because you don't have a life.  Or it could be that some can create quality content, and some can't.   GregJackP   Boomer!   04:34, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Hicks lack quality. And my sandbox Battle record of Napoleon Bonaparte exceeds anything you could write in a lifetime, and it's not even finished. American prig.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh  {chat} 04:39, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * LOL. Whatever.  My articles don't have imaginary or inaccurate flags.   GregJackP   Boomer!   05:09, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Neither do mine, which is further proof that you say things blindly, like your GA "pass". Your point? I like your block history, such a bad boy aren't you? All mouth...  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh  {chat} 05:16, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with leaving all of these insults stand here. It will help people better understand the dispute going on at the moment, anyway. But please leave it be! I think you two have wasted enough time flinging invective at each other. Calm down, walk away, and go write some articles. Please. AmericanLemming (talk) 20:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I had agreed to walk away until he continued with his personal attacks. Get him to stop and I'm outta here.  If he continues, we'll go to ANI about his racist comments and personal attacks.  I've already pulled my MilHist userbox because I'm not going to associate with a group that tolerates that type of racism without even saying a word about it.   GregJackP   Boomer!   20:09, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

MarcusBritish wants to delete the above discussion, while GregJackP wants to keep it. As a compromise, I have kept the discussion but collapsed it. I would ask you both to refrain from editing this discussion anymore. @, please don't delete it, and @, please don't remove the collapse syntax. Thank you. AmericanLemming (talk) 20:27, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

A (hopefully) somewhat impartial summary of the contentious GA review
All I know right now is that I'm really confused. One editor, MarcusBritish, believes this article to fall hopelessly short of the GA criteria, while another, GregJackP, believes it to meet but not exceed the GA criteria. My attempts at mediation have failed, with MarcusBritish failing the article (I don't think he and Poeticbent were ever going to agree, so that's probably the best thing that could have happened), only to have GregJackP pass it within 24 hours of MarcusBritish's failing of the article. I don't feel very comfortable with the criteria myself, but in my uniformed and unexperienced opinion I think MarcusBritish has demanded too much in his review, while GregJackP has demanded too little in his.

But I'm really quite tired of trying to mediate disputes over this article, and the hours I've spent doing so seem to have been largely a waste of my time. My only hope is that I prevented the dispute between the first reviewer and the nominator from escalating any further, with those two likely to abide to an informal interaction ban now rather than having to abide by the formal ban that could have very well resulted. Anyway, if anyone wants to debate whether this should be a GA or not or how the GA criteria should be interpreted or how articles should be referenced, by all means go ahead. As for me, I'm going to improve the article. I don't think it's currently at GA status, but why complain about that fact when I can just go and fix the issues myself? :) At very least I'll do a light copy-edit and expand the lead so it does a better job of summarizing the article. For all those involved in this contentious GA review, whether those most directly involved (,, myself, and ), as well as all those who stopped by to offer their opinion on the matter (, , , , , , , and ), I thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia, and I hope that in time I can improve the article to the point where we all can agree that it should be a GA. AmericanLemming (talk) 04:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking up the lede expansion. A very quick browse suggests the article body is more or less at GA standards, but of course extra polish helps. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:46, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Gday AmericanLemming. Think your assessment (above) of the entire episode looks fairly accurate (and your proposed way fwd is probably best). Thanks for your efforts so far on this one. Anyway one point to anyone still interested -  this article still has a couple of citation needed tags , and I'm a bit confused as to how that meets the GA criteria to be honest (issue of inconsistent referencing aside). To me its promotion seems a little hasty (at best). Anotherclown (talk) 05:01, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It took me between 5 and 8 hours to make a first reading of this article and make almost 100 review remarks regarding various points, including sources, grammar, wording, tone, neutrality, layout, etc. There is no way this article can be "passed" without a second reading and through reassessment after these points are addressed. Any article on the holocaust is with a controversial subject per se. Each claim, source and image needs verifying carefully. I hadn't even got round to that, looking for dead links or false interpretations, bar one or two, so there's no way any GregJackP could have done that. I also planned to review the concerns raised on the talk page to make sure they were all covered. Also, Nick-D made some remark about the reliability of some sources, there are a lot of Polish sources giving a heavy bias towards Polish POV. The lead is far too short, but needs reviewing only when the main body is complete and ready to summarise. There are so many areas of the criteria there that have not been evaluated either by myself or anyone else that this pass is not within reason. It was not reassessed, GregJackP did not read through the article and perform a proper review. Therefore this pass cannot be taken seriously. It isn't "more or less GA standards". The prose is confusing to read because it jumps all over between evens and is hard to follow. It lacks structure. There is no way this is a GA in its current state because of the problems within its disorganised format, it is too messy to warrant a grade of GA, when IMO it would barely attain C or B-class by MilHist standards. GA may be a form of criteria in itself, but that doesn't mean we should ignore obvious flaws in the content just to give the nominee an easy time.. certain things may be overlooked but I don't think anyone who takes themselves seriously as an editor or reviewer should overlook every issue just because it's not stated in the GACR. Besides that, the nominee didn't want to fix the referencing because "they don't like it", they said. WP:IJDLI remarks are always going to make it impossible for a reviewer to grade an article as it fails to make the collaborative process easy. This is what the nominee did to me, they pushed my review aside, one point in 100, because it went against their preference derailed my review which was taken seriously and respectfully of the subject. As a result the whole review was harmed by the nominee's egotism, lack of humility and bullying tactics which have been continued by GregJackP, another bully with a history of aggressive behaviour against editors. I suggest an uninvolved editor reassess this article, as GregJackP's behaviour appears more subjective and biased than logical, and does not appear to have followed GACR guidelines as he left no review notes which makes this perverse pass arbitrary and open to question.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh  {chat} 05:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I hadn't even got round to that, looking for dead links—which proves that you don't understand the GA review process. GregJackP   Boomer!   05:29, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If you haven't got anything normal to say go WP:HARASS someone else. Looking for dead links is necessary to verify claims in the prose. If the link is dead the claim cannot be substantiated and therefore fails 2b of the GACR. Your bureaucratic mind seems to forget that you need a means to an end, you can't just jump the queue and get answers. An article on the holocaust with dead links is a risk to itself as it risks the stability of the article, as anti-holocaust people may take advantage of dead links. The process is not the all and everything of writing an article, you need to learn to think outside of the box instead of beating the drum monotonously.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh  {chat} 05:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Jesus, don't you read any of the criteria? See FN4 "Dead links are considered verifiable only if the link is not a bare url. Using consistent formatting or including every element of the bibliographic material is not required, although, in practice, enough information must be supplied that the reviewer is able to identify the source."   GregJackP   Boomer!   05:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't refer to me as "Jesus", I find it offensive to my disbelief. Just because bead links are "considered verifiable" doesn't mean a reviewer cannot look request for new sourcing or archived links in order to improve the article. Once again, you seem to adhere so closely to the GACR that you think it's a violation to ask for an improvement even if it isn't 100% required. If an article contains 100 refs and 80 are dead by your standards "all is good". By mine, that poses questions over the integrity of the content. Stick in the mud reviews or rubber stamping as you do is a poor way to implement standards. I prefer the term "ask or you don't get" as opposed to not asking at all. Some editors are happy to go the extra mile.. I'm one of those. You only exert yourself when you want to oppose other editors, because you're a bully by nature, first you use force, then legal threats. I use common sense and logic.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh  {chat} 06:09, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * So you find it offensive? Too bad.  It's a common idiom.  I don't like what you wrote either, but that hasn't stopped you, nor have you slowed down or redacted any of them (even as you remove my comments from article talkpages).  If you don't want me to refer to an imaginary deity, don't read my comments.  Again, to evaluate an article, you go by the standards, not insist on what you prefer, as you did in this case.  So start using the standards.  Jesus, it's not that difficult.   GregJackP   Boomer!   06:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There are approx. 100 points in the review above, 100 more than you made and only 1 is disputed. None of them express a "preference" for anything. You don't know what you're talking about because you haven't read it properly, nor can you quote my "preference". Your friend, the one you passed it for, applied "sfn" therefore the preference is his. It's less difficult to see that if you look at the history of the article and see who applied "sfn" first. Why don't you pull the stick out of your arse and actually review the facts instead of making events up which are not supported by the evidence in the review above? I have no preferences whatsoever. Your accusations are based on nothing. Bring some evidence that I favour "sfn" forward or STFU, that is the American way is it not?  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh  {chat} 06:44, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

@ and @: Please stop insulting each other. It doesn't do any good, and it wastes time that you could otherwise be spending creating content. As for MarcusBritish's request for an uninvolved editor to take a look, I am all in favor of that (I sighed when I saw GregJackP had passed the article, as I knew MarcusBritish wouldn't take it well), but it may be difficult to find someone who is willing to spend the time necessary to do so. In the meantime, let's all work on improving the article (or other articles, for that matter). Give Poeticbent and I a few weeks, and we'll either have something that meets the GA criteria (in MarcusBritish's view) or greatly exceeds the criteria (in GregJackP's view). Alright? AmericanLemming (talk) 06:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 *   I don't want to step into the middle of the personal issues here, and I don't know enough about Wikipolicy yet to comment on the citing issue, but speaking as a completely neutral observer of both subject and discussion... MarcusBritish does have a point re: the article's prose. Right now it's basically just a frankly overwhelming and chronologically confusing laundry list of atrocities, clearly written from the perspective of Polish authors--or at least sympathisers--to whom the details of the background conflicts are so obvious they don't need explaining. Which to an extent of course they are; I'm not suggesting that the article needs to justify why the Polish people were attacked, only that providing at least some more neutral and coherently organised context would greatly enhance the reader's understanding, and hence the article's value. Shoebox 2   talk  18:59, 11 January 2014 (UTC)