Wikipedia:Peer review/Polish September Campaign/archive1

Polish September Campaign
The begining of the Second World War. On a road to FA. I have added section about German army tactics and equipment, which I think was the last missing piece for the comprehensivness requirement. Your comments, please? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:50, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
 * It's a nice article overall, but the section on "Details of the campaign" seems far too sparse on the actual details on the German invasion. Some mention of the general direction of attack of the German army groups would help clear that up, I think. Also in the opening section, second paragraph, I think the first sentence should be moved down past the second, so that the reason for the government evacuation is immediately clear. The references are lacking in German works, such as possibly "Achtung-Panzer!" by Guderian. &mdash; RJH 16:52, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Tnx. I have made most of the fixes you recommended, except references. IIRC Guderian AP was written before '39 so it can hardly be a reference for that article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:16, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Wlcm. I was probably thinking of "Panzer Leader" then, also by Guderian, which I think covers the northern part of the Poland campaign and others. (XIV Pz. Corps?) Sorry. &mdash; RJH 20:00, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
 * From 119 (02:22, 8 May 2005 (UTC)):
 * I suggest a "Prelude" section to cover, at the least, why the campaign was fought and diplomacy prior to it.
 * Good idea. Done, although it may need some grammar copyedits and such. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:40, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I think it may be better to split off the plans sections of "Polish/German army equipment and tactics" under a single "Plans" section.
 * Well, it could be done, but it would further increse the discrepancy between Polish and German sections. I think the current side vs side description is sufficient. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:40, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Myths may be better suited to incorporation into the main text. Perhaps they are common misconceptions that stand out together, I do not know nor do I think that can be measured, but I think it would be a more comprehensive and readable narrative if its points were split up to the relevant sections in the campaign.
 * Maybe - but I don't see how they could be incorporated. Feel free to do it if you see it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:40, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I think the long list of battles in the infobox is not useful, as a person who does not already know the names of the battles will really not use it yet it is very prominent.
 * Lots of red, but then it gives some useful names of battles for future reference and article writing. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:40, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I, personally, consider such infoboxes helpful and informative. They provide a useful reference, providing a wider context at the same time. Lysy 07:24, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
 * The current "Names of the campaign" section is, I think, more suitable to the first sentence of the article. Unless it will be expanded to include some historiography of the names, I think it should be removed after merging above.
 * Maybe. I don't mind it where it is, but...be bold. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:40, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I think this deserves clarification/expansion: "Following a number of German-staged incidents (Operation Himmler),"
 * Done. And it has its own subarticle as well. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:40, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Strength and casualty figures always have a degree of uncertainty and controversy, and I think they would be more appropriate in a separate section that is referenced and explained, rather than an infobox which requires simplification.
 * Well, infoboxes are common for battles and wars (if a little less), and there is a note explaining the details. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:40, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I think there is bias in having photos of Germans shelling Poles, Germans bombing Poles, Polish civilians who have been bombed, and the graves of Polish soldiers with nothing corresponding from the German/Soviet perspective. Similarly, the newspaper map should, I think, have its historical importance explained (also, "The Time" needs disambiguation), because it is a period document which we should not appear to endorse in use as a normal, interchangeable and neutral map.
 * Well, the Poles were invaded, weren't they? So there are no photoes of Polish bombing German civies, for example, beacuese it never happened. I think the photos illustrate the campaign for what it was - German invasion - but feel free to add more if you think they can improve the POV or sth like this. I added a German parade photo for balance. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:40, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
 * It could perhaps use a photo of some Polish army defenders, if one is available. &mdash; RJH 20:30, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I am constantly adding nice pics, feel free to help. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:04, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Attribution of opinion needed in places, e.g., "The plan to defend the borders contributed vastly to the Polish defeat,"
 * I will think what I can attrubute directly, but I don't want to read through the references again...it is all there, though.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:40, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
 * You might also make a brief mention of how the earlier German possession of Czechoslovakia contributed to the defeat of Poland by significantly extending the amount of border they had to defend with their available forces. &mdash; RJH 19:34, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Impressive. My only recommendation is to have a more condensed lead section (3 paras are the max allowed if you want this to be FAd) and for the somewhat peripheral equipment and tactics sections to be summarized into a single section here and the current text moved to equipment and tactics used in the Polish September Campaign. Also, where are the inline cites? The inote system is by far the easiest to use for that. See the edit page of helium to see that system in action. --mav 17:05, 10 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Condensed lead into 3 paras. As this article is rather short (47kb), I think there is no need to create subarticles, and the equipment and tactics section are important for the article. I am not sure what do you mean by 'inline cites'? Inote template is an interesting tool, I will try using it - tnx for showing it to me. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:14, 10 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Since when has 47KB been considered rather short? Most college term papers are 50% smaller and the recommended max page size is that size as well. That is why I suggested that the somewhat peripherally important sub topic be summarized here and expanded upon in another article. Inline cites are places where you say exactly where the information in the preceding sentence/paragraph was taken from. --mav 20:23, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I have finished expanding :> as per your requests (i.e. plan section before the battle). The article is 54kb now, I will think what can be moved to a subarticle, but the lenght is not bad - many FAs are around 50kb (Polish-Soviet War, for example). Any other suggestons before I submit it to FAC? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:04, 14 May 2005 (UTC)