Wikipedia:Peer review/History of the Jews in Poland/archive1

History of the Jews in Poland
I believe this article has finally reached the FAC standard. What do you think? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The see also/see main headers could use some sort of uniform formatting, right now they are all over the place as you scroll down the article. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:54, 2005 July 23 (UTC)
 * I am not sure how to fix it, especially as there is some confusion about which template is the proper one, and some of them vere subject to VfD. How would you suggest we improve those templates? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:31, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I think I have done some progress on that. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:26, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm having some problem with the title. Why not History of Jews in Poland or something like that? "The Jews" seems a bit un-PC. For example, I don't think anyone would like to see an article titled History of the Blacks in America and so on. --malathion talk 02:23, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Although I disagree on the idea of 'the Jews' being un-PC, maybe 'History of the Jewish people in Poland' covers the subject best. The (lengthy) article looks excellent, the pic 'Banners from March 1968.' seems to be not working (or loading). I suggest you put it up for a FAC. -- Cugel 07:55, July 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * I am afraid the PC and the nuances of Jews vs. the Jews are a bit beyond me. All the proposed names sound same to me - feel free to move the article if you think one is better (preferably mention the move on the article's talk page few days before to get more input though). The pic is working ok for me atm. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:31, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The side-by-side placement of the and  boxes, in combination with the TOC, create a wall between the lead and the rest of the article. It may be necessary to put one on top of the other. I also don't like the way "the Jews" sounds in the title, but I'm not sure which alternative is best. NatusRoma 01:00, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * The wall was intentional, I think it look nice and gathes all 'lists' in one place. Don't you like it? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 09:49, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that I don't. Especially when it's toward the bottom of the screen, it cuts off the body of the article from the lead. NatusRoma 21:18, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, that's the intention to divide the lead from main body. Well, let's see which version others prefere. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 08:44, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * As the creator of many of the "History of the Jews" articles, I unsurprisingly think there is no reason to view either "Jews" or "the Jews" as being preferrable (PBS, for example, uses "the Jews" in their "Civilization and the Jews", Thomas Cahill uses the same in his recent bestseller, The Gifts of the Jews, etc.). I would suggest we keep the title as is in any case, since all of the other country histories of the Jews keep the same format -- History of the Jews in Ireland, History of the Jews in the United States, History of the Jews in Germany, etc. --Goodoldpolonius2 19:57, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * a) getting to be too long (just acceptable now, but probably not with additions) b) lacks specifics on the legal situation of Jews in Poland prior to WWII. c) I don't think Main article: History of Poland (1918-1939) is really right for Interwar period 1918-1939, a separate article The Jews in Interwar Poland should be started, even if it is just a cut and paste of the current inter-war section c) references seem quite limited, d) the map is for non-commercial use, which isn't acceptable for wikipedia e) "About 3 million Jews" should probably be "About 3 million Polish Jews" for clarity since many non Polish Jews were brought to Poland to be killed.  This number should have a clear source and methodology given to avoid future "revisionism".  f) "A relatively large percentage of Polish Jews participated in" is imprecise and should definitely be clearly referenced.  -- overall I think the quality of the article is good and this can easily become a featured article.
 * On (b)&(c) what do you find missing from this section? On (d), as far as I know, the debate is still inconclusive as to whether explicit fair use graphics are to be allowed, at least from the meta talk on the subject, and this is a really useful map. (e) and (f) were fixed, thanks for the catch.  --Goodoldpolonius2 01:24, 12 August 2005 (UTC)