File:WWII Poland Invasion 1939-09-01.jpgGerman soldiers destroying Polish border checkpoint on 1st September. Second World War begins.
The begining of Second World War. The birth of Blitzkrieg. The fall of the first Ally. The Hitler-Stalin alliance. Hopefully, my 10th FA :) Your comments, as always, much appreciated. Btw, I am adding the pic to this nomination, I hope you like it - perhaps all our future FACs should have a pic? Discuss the pic pros and cons it in talk, though, not here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul PiotrusTalk 21:57, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Object - Very good, but: Overwhelming TOC. Stub sections, such as ==Names of the campaign==, ==Order of battle==, and the first === Economic base===. These should be merged into other sections, IMO.Causes of World War II is rather short to be the 'main article' to anything and the == Prelude to the campaign == section in this article goes into a comparable amount of detail as the 'main article'. So, given the existence of Causes of World War II, much of the common detail should be there so other articles can call upon it directly and interested readers here can zoom to that level of detail if they want. A more compact treatment in this article is needed to keep most other readers focused on the main topic covered here (the prelude is a sub-topic and should be treated as such). The ==Opposing forces== section also goes into more detail than needed for this article. Since it is about the equipment and tactics used (subtopics), not directly the campaign itself, that detail should be moved to equipment and tactics used in the Polish September Campaign (or something similar) and a summary left here (as I suggested in peer review). In short, almost everything but the meat of the article in ==Details of the campaign== should be condensed to get this article back to a more manageable size that can serve many different reader types (not everybody has the time or patience to read through so much text to get to the meat of the article). Also, where are the inline citations? Again, great work but it is still at the director's cut stage. A more compact treatment is needed for mass consumption. This is all part of good writing. Oh, and just give the word and I'll help you summarize - I'm pretty good at that. :) --mav 03:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
By all means, do try summarizing. The names and order sections can be merged, but I don't see how economy ones can be merged into others. I don't think this article it too long - we have longer FAs then this - but if you have a vision, do try to help :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul PiotrusTalk 08:30, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I will do that. :) If you could first add inline citations (noting work and page number) via something simple and easily transportable like the inote system, then the text I move will also be correctly cited. I know it will be a pain to add the inline cites after the fact (it took me several hours to do that to an article half this size), but doing so will greatly increase the verifiability of this article. Please tell me when you are done and I'll get to work summarizing per above. --mav 16:32, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I merged 'names of the campaign' into lead. I can't think of a way to merge 'order of battle' anywhere, and 'German economic base' needs expantion, not merger. 'Causes of...' article is not well developed, but I think it is a logical main article for the 'prelude...' section. The TOC is large, but not overwhelming I think - do we have any rule for its lenght/number of sections? I still think that the current amount of information in the article is exactly what it needst to be. As for inline citatins, I will use them when I am sure I got a hang of them. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul PiotrusTalk 17:21, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
==Opposing forces== section now a much more managable size and the detial has been moved to Opposing forces in the Polish September Campaign (with a little work that can easily be your 11th FA :). The == Prelude to the campaign == section is still too long by half, IMO, and later this weekend I'll see about some summarizing there. Getting close. --mav 02:05, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
== Prelude to the campaign == section is still too detailed for this article, but I'm willing to see it expanded some more before it is summarized and the detail spun off. So I'm changing my vote to neutral. --mav 19:41, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
On the one hand, I think the article is great and comprehensive and I'd like to support, but I'm a little concerned about the Polish nationalist perspective and the presentation of the USSR in the article. It's not so overt that I want to oppose outright, but it also gives me reservations about supporting, so I'll just call my vote neutral. Everyking 08:35, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to mention which words/sentences/etc. look POVed, and I will try to NPOV them. Or go into any details - how and where is the article POVed? Or is it a 'general feeling'? I can hardly work on such a general feeling comment, though :( --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul PiotrusTalk 17:21, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The article is filled with a remarkable number of pictures. While I know that people on the english wiki (in contrast to German wiki) are more lenient and less formal with copyrights with regards to pictures, I would nevertheless want to point out that the majority of the pictures lack traceable sources and merely state they stand in either public domain or are within the limits of fair use. Just a couple of examples with doubtful copyrights: a.the Image "German Soviet" refers to the US Memorial Holocaust Museum and 2 lines under the picture there is a copyright tag declaring that the copyright belongs to - well - the US Memorial Holocaust Museum (no-where is stated that an US-government employee has made the foto or that it was released into public domain). b.the claim of fairuse of the map "Ac.corridor" is rather doubtful, because this map isn't just a thumbnail and no link or source is cited. c.the photo "German troops in Warshaw" states that it was made by Leni Riefenstahl, however goes on to cite the US Government as a source (and presumably therefore it is labelled to be public domain). However only fotographs made by US employees for the US government published on a US government website are released into the public domain. These are just 3 examples, there are a couple of other pics that have a doubtful copyright status. In terms of the article itself, I do not find that this article is generally POVed like suggested above - it is well-researched and well-written. Themanwithoutapast 23:35, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I am sure there are relevant procedures to go through (fixing the tag or deleting the image as a copyvio). I am not a specialist with images copyrights though - could you give me a detailed list of the ones you find objectionable, point to the relevant policy or perhaps help me deal with them? It would be a shame if a few non-essential images would stop this from being FA. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul PiotrusTalk 11:23, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Object on the same grounds as themanwithoutapast. Minor points: the infobox contains two slightly different names, neither of which is the same as that of the article; the first sentence mentions several names for the war, but not the Russian one- is there a Russian one?; the statement that Soviet occupation, while shorter, also resulted in millions of deaths raises the question of how many millions. Mark1 08:27, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed the infobox so it uses the most common term 'Polish September Campaign'. I have not yet found a Russian name, perhaps one of our Russian speaking Wikipedians can help with that? I will contact the ones I know. I have adjusted the 'millions' with a specific figure based on Polish areas annexed by the Soviet Union, tnx for pointing that one out. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul PiotrusTalk 11:23, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support: The issues of copyright violations (missing sources and explanations) I have commented on have been addressed. As I stated above, the article is well-researched and also otherwise fulfills the FA criteria. I want to point out again, that I am not considering myself a copyright paranoid - on the contrary, I believe that the fair use-doctrine (and other legal possibilities for illustration of images) should be used to its limits, however as a rule of thumb an image should at least include a source and an explanation for its copyright status (especially if it is a FA). Themanwithoutapast 13:32, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support though the article exceeds the Wikipedia 32k size limit. Andries 18:50, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing wrong with inote. --mav 13:39, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well... I'd like to see it actually display notes first! - Ta bu shi da yu 02:57, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - can we have a brief description of what an "Order of battle" is? Perhaps turning that section into prose would be good. With regards to the sentence "The government of the United Kingdom pledged to defend Poland in the event of a German attack, and Romania in case of other threats.", why is "other threats" italicised? Why is "early autumn" italicised in "In addition, a military credit was granted and armament was to reach Polish or Romanian ports in early autumn."? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:36, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I remember these additions were made by yours truly. The italicised text is simply the exact quote from the bilateral military consultations following the signing of Franco-Polish Military Alliance.
Support Perhaps the header is too long and might be shortened, but I like the article. Halibutt 17:09, May 29, 2005 (UTC)