Wikipedia:Featured article review/Warsaw Uprising/archive2


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

The article was removed by Joelr31 00:40, 25 February 2009.

Review commentary

 * Notified WikiProject Poland, MilHist WikiProject, Nihil novi, Jacurek, Halibutt, and Piotrus.
 * previous FAR

Since the last review, there has been considerable work on the article. Unfortunately, many citation requests remain and its factual accuracy is still disputed. It is at the top of Wikipedia:Featured articles/Cleanup listing. Despite eighteen months' work on the article (since the last review) the article is still in need of assistance to restore it back to FA-status. DrKiernan (talk) 11:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I am afraid I pretty much exhausted sources available to me during the last pass. Unless somebody else helps this time, I think there is little I can do by myself. PS. I'll improve some refs. But I know that some data will not be verifiable w/out offline sources (books...) which currently I don't have at hand.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Just because something is in the article doesn't mean it should stay. I encourage you to be extra critical of uncited passages that should have cites but are not crucial to the article and move them to the talk page. --mav (talk) 04:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

How do people feel about this now? Is it necessary to move to FARC? I see only one tag left, for the joke about Yeltsin. DrKiernan (talk) 08:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * had a look for a reference for the joke but could not find one so thought better to remove it. don't think it's necessary to move to FARC given the improvement, better to focus our time elsewhere for now, Tom B (talk) 14:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There are two problems, as I see it: 1) unreferenced parts (there may be no missing citation tags, but the problem remains, simply untagged) and 2) possibly undue coverage of the first few days compared with the rest. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 13:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The book is dominated by Norman Davies. Can someone justify/defend the NPOV status given the big criticism section in his article and whether this article gives his theories undue weight?  YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! ) 02:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * He's the only non-Polish source. I don't think the claims that he minimizes Polish antisemitism are justified. I did insert his work on Polish anti-semitism into the article, but it was removed. DrKiernan (talk) 11:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * BTW, it could be undue to mention the rapes and murders of Jews by the odd Polish soldier, when balanced against the systematic elimination of tens of thousands by the Nazis. DrKiernan (talk) 11:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations. Joelito (talk) 21:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Remove - There still appear to be many unsourced chunks throughout. Cirt (talk) 23:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose FA This just doesn't look like an FA to me right now. I have two general issues, the first technical and the second relating to content. The technical issue is that there are quite a number of sentences that can't really be understood without following a Wikilink, and that isn't good writing. The content issue is that while I'm not by any means an expert, I have seen the Warsaw uprising discussed in several WWII histories, and this article doesn't clearly tell the story in the same way -- the dilemma the Poles faced of needing to assert their strength before the Soviets arrived, the tragedy that as soon as they acted, the Soviets halted their advance and allowed the Nazis to obliterate the Polish forces before entering Warsaw, the desperate struggles of the Polish forces to hold out as the net tightened. Looie496 (talk) 02:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Remove. I see two factual accuracy dispute tags active since October. Xasodfuih (talk) 10:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You must be looking at a cached revision. DrKiernan (talk) 15:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.